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

London Borough of Lambeth (202409825)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409825

Lambeth Council

29 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of flood damage to the property.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of the property, a 2-bed flat owned by the landlord. She moved to a new property in March 2025. She lives with her 2 children. She has mental health concerns and 1 of her children has a diagnosis of autism.
  2. The resident reported issues with an overflowing sink causing wastewater to enter her children’s bedroom to the landlord on 13 March 2024. It attended but could not access the property. She made further reports on 14 and 16 March 2024 before requesting a temporary move on 18 March 2024.
  3. On 21 and 22 March 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about its response to repairs and damage to her possessions.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident on 18 April 2024. It gave a list of works raised and its response to these. It found that it had attended within policy timescales and found no failing. It said it was unable to consider compensation for damaged items as this would fall under its separate insurance claim process.
  5. The resident sent a further complaint on 1 May 2024 as she felt the landlord had several opportunities to repair issues with back–surging pipework and prevent damage to her property. It responded to this on 18 July 2024 and referred to its original stage 1 response of 18 April 2024.
  6. The resident requested formal escalation to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 10 October 2024 as it had not repaired the property following the flood in March 2024. She also said it had left her property unlocked after a gas safety check, leading to a burglary and theft of her personal items.
  7. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process on 14 November 2024. It said its surveyor had inspected the property and once it completed works to repair the ceilings and associated leak damage, the property needed a deep clean. It asked her to contact it if she intended to return to the property as she was bidding on other properties in the area.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told the landlord and the Ombudsman that the complaint has affected her mental health, and the issues have affected her son in relation to his autism. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.
  2. The evidence provided in this case shows the resident has reported issues with drainage and ceiling damage on several occasions from June 2021. However, she did not formally complaint until March 2024. In line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), we will only be investigating matters that occurred within the 12 months leading to her complaints.
  3. The resident has raised issues with access to the property in February 2025. This was after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process. In line with the Scheme, we have not investigated this part of her complaint as she raised these prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  4. The resident raised concerns around banding for moving home, including on medical grounds, and the suitability of her temporary accommodation. She is recommended to seek advice from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) about this.

Flood damage

  1. The resident reported an uncontainable leak in her children’s bedroom to the landlord on 14 May 2023. This was an out of hours report. She said the leak was pouring down, affecting the electrics, and the ceiling had cracked. It attended the next day, 15 May 2023 but could not access the property. Neither party has provided evidence showing that she made further reports or that it tried to visit about this again.
  2. The industry standard response to an uncontainable water leak is to attend within emergency timescales. The landlord has 2 response timescales for emergency repairs. The first is to attend within 2 hours and fix within 24 for those causing serious health and safety problems or severe damage. The second is to fix within 1 working day. It will attend to routine (non-emergency) repairs within 1 and 7 days depending on the severity of the issue.
  3. It is unclear why the landlord did not try to revisit the property after the initial no access appointment. However, its response was within policy timescales. The resident made no further reports and as such, the landlord’s response was fair in the circumstances.
  4. The resident reported the kitchen sink overflowing and causing waste to go to the children’s bedroom on 13 March 2024. The landlord attended on the same day but could not access the property or contact the resident by telephone. It closed the job on the same day. There is nothing in the landlord’s policy or the tenancy agreement to specify what action the landlord should take in this situation. However, it made efforts to attend within policy timescales.
  5. The resident made a further report of the same issue on 14 March 2024. She asked the landlord to call her before attending as she was staying with a friend due to having no utilities. It passed the works to its drainage contractor who were unable to unblock the kitchen sink. They noted on 18 March 2024 that they could not get to the drains due to general waste blocking their access. They said they would not attend again until the resident cleared the garden. The landlord told her this and asked her to call back when this was complete.
  6. The resident asked the landlord for a decant on 18 and 19 March 2024. She made another report on 26 March 2024. On this occasion, she said the kitchen ceiling had fallen onto her and her children. She asked the landlord to call before attending as she had evacuated the property. Its records around attendance are unclear but as works remained outstanding following her later decant it was unable to complete repairs at this stage. However, the reason for this is not clear.
  7. In the landlord’s complaint response to the resident on 18 April 2024. It mentions her correspondence on 21 and 22 March 2024, which we have not seen a copy of. However, it summarised her complaint to be about the recent flood due to drainage issues, associated damage and her request for compensation for damaged possessions. It found that it had attended within policy timescales and provided a list of repair logs to date. It said it requested an urgent inspection of the kitchen ceiling which was a positive action.
  8. The landlord said it could not provide compensation as damaged possession claims would need to go through its insurance process. Its compensation policy says it should not consider compensation where the complaint is covered by its insurance policy, such as damages to personal effects. As such, its complaint response was fair and well–reasoned in line with policies.
  9. On 1 May 2024, the resident made a further complaint. At this stage, she had moved into temporary accommodation due to fleeing domestic abuse. She felt the landlord could have stopped the water causing the flooding without reaching the drain, although acknowledged it could not have gotten to the blockage. She said she had previously faced roughly £1,000 in damages when the issue arose previously. She asked for a response to her complaint again on 13 June 2024.
  10. The landlord sent a further stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 18 July 2024. It addressed other issues relating to temporary accommodation and said it had already responded to her concerns about repairs in its reply of 18 April 2024. It recommended that she escalate her complaint to stage 2.
  11. On 10 October 2024, the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process as it had still not repaired her property from the flood. She said it had left the door unlocked after a gas safety check and this had led to a burglary and theft of her smart television.
  12. In its stage 2 complaint response of 14 November 2024, the landlord said its surveyor had inspected the property and found the issues needing repairs. it had raised orders to complete works to its contractor. It said it was unclear about whether the resident would be returning to the property due to the circumstances of her temporary move. It said the property was void as she had vacated it more than 8 months ago. It declined to comment on the theft of the television due to the ongoing police investigation.
  13. While the situation was understandably stressful and upsetting for the resident, the landlord has explained that it moved her to emergency accommodation in October 2023, before moving to temporary accommodation on 11 March 2024 because of domestic abuse. The timeline of events in this case is unclear at times but the evidence shows the resident was seeking changes to banding to allow her to bid for different properties. As such, the landlord considered the property to be void and did not treat the repairs with urgency. There was no communication between the parties about the matter between July and October 2024. It was unable to access the property after the initial reports and could not access the drains to complete works. Therefore, we are unable to consider this to be a failing by the landlord.
  14. The resident has sought compensation for damages to personal items. There is no evidence that the actions or inaction of the landlord resulted in damage in this case. In its complaint response of 18 April 2024, it appropriately recommended that she make a claim through her own contents insurer or to make a liability claim on its website with supporting documentation if she did not have her own contents insurance. It also included information for contents insurance available to its tenants and recommended she take out a policy if she did not have one. This was a reasonable response to her request for reimbursement for damaged items.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord uses a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge new complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of acknowledgement. It will acknowledge complaint escalation requests within 5 working days of receipt and respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgement. At both stages, it can extend its response time. This is by 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. However, the policy says it should not use this option without good reason.
  2. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 18 April 2024, 18 working days after receiving her complaint. It has not provided a copy of her original complaint, or its acknowledgement of this. Its response was outside of its policy timescale, and it did not apologise for this or offer any form of remedy. This was not good practice.
  3. When the resident emailed a further complaint on 1 May 2024, the landlord did acknowledge this within its policy timescale. However, it should have considered this as an escalation request for matters relating to repairs. Instead, it logged the entire email as a new stage 1 complaint. She then chased it for a response on 13 June 2024. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 18 July 2024 and simply referred her back to its original stage 1 response of 18 April 2024 for repair issues.
  4. This was poor complaint handling by the landlord. It failed to correctly escalate her complaint to stage 2, then took 51 working days to provide a complaint response after acknowledgment which did not address any of her concerns. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint but did not offer any form of redress for this.
  5. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 10 October 2024. The landlord responded on 14 November 2024, 24 working days later. This was only slightly outside of its policy timescale following her most recent request. However, it should have provided a stage 2 response in relation to this matter by 5 June 2024. It did not acknowledge or apologise for this.
  6. The landlord had a disjointed approach to complaint handling. It failed to separate the complaint elements for accurate and prompt responses. It did not apologise for delays or offer any redress for this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of flood damage to the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £100 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
    2. Write an apology to the resident for its complaint handling failures.
    3. Provide proof of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman.