London Borough of Lambeth (202424802)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424802

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Repair requests following a leak into the property and subsequent report of damp and mould.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 1-bedroom flat owned by the landlord, which is a local authority. The resident informed us that she has skin allergies due to damp and mould in the property. The landlord is aware of her skin allergies.
On 9 January 2023 the resident informed the landlord about damage to her bathroom, kitchen, and passageway resulting from a leak originating from the flat above. The landlord assessed the damage to her property on 17 January 2023. Following this assessment, it initiated repairs, including a job to replaster the ceilings in the bathroom, kitchen, and hallway, as well as additional tasks to restore lighting and decorate the affected areas.
The resident made a formal complaint on 13 July 2023. She noted delays in completing plastering and decorating work. She also reported damp, mould, and damage to her bathroom.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 August 2023. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience it had caused the resident. It said the ceilings had only minor water marks that did not require plastering. To resolve the outstanding issues, it scheduled a decorator to paint the ceiling on 14 and 15 September, an electrician for 4 September, and a plumber for 11 September 2023.
The resident escalated her complaint on 16 November 2024. She stated that the landlord had not addressed all the outstanding repairs.
On 8 April 2024 the resident’s healthcare practitioner (who we shall refer to hereafter as the representative) submitted a second formal complaint on her behalf, noting that the landlord had not completed multiple ongoing repairs. The representative urged the landlord to contact the resident and provide an update on the status of her repairs, emphasizing that the unresolved issues were impacting the resident’s well-being.
The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 8 May 2024. It said it had completed all the repairs.
The resident escalated this second complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 5 June 2024. She said that several repairs raised in August and September 2023 were still incomplete, with only the replastering work addressed.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 16 July 2024. It apologised for the delay in completing the repairs. It acknowledged that it had raised several repairs work that it had only partially completed. It explained this was due to multiple failed attempts to access the property which led to it closing the original work order. It said the resident should have facilitated access. It confirmed it had raised the work order again and included appointment dates for the various repairs.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to us. She said that the landlord had not completed the repairs. The damp and mould had spread to her kitchen, making it impossible for her to prepare meals. She also requested compensation and asked us to assist with her request for a management move.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had had a detrimental impact on her health. 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. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
In bringing her complaint to us, the resident raised several new issues that were not part of her formal complaints to the landlord. Issues relating to boiler repairs, banging noise from her neighbours flat, reports of flood in the kitchen in November 2024, branches left outside the property and the landlord locking the front entrance of the property twice. Under para 42.a of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. This is because the landlord should be given the opportunity to respond to any new issues that arise under its complaints procedure before the Ombudsman investigates them. These new issues have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, as such we will not consider them in this report. It is open to the resident to bring this complaint to us about these issues after she has completed the landlord’s complaints process.

Repair requests following leaks in the property.

The landlord’s repairs manual states the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property. It also says it is responsible for keep in proper working order, among other things, any fittings for supplying water and electricity. This includes repairing baths, ceilings, outside/ front doors, electrical wiring, light switches, plastering and finishing, and repairing skirting boards.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it operates 5 types of repairs with different timescales. These repair types include urgent emergency which it will address within 2 hours and fix within 24 hours and routine repairs which it will address within a 28 working day period.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) provides landlords with a tool to identify and protect against potential risks and hazards found in residential properties. A leak may give rise to a number of hazards in the HHSRS. This includes an increase in the risk of excess cold, damp and mould growth, and personal injury.
It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The landlord’s record-keeping has impacted this service’s ability to conduct a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and likely contributed to the other failures identified in this report.
On 7 January 2023 the landlord promptly responded to reports of a leak from the flat above and successfully completed repairs to stop the leak. However, on 9 January 2023 the resident reported water damage in her bathroom, kitchen, and hallway due to the leak. The landlord returned on 17 January 2023 to assess the damage and initiated repair jobs to hack out and replaster the ceilings in the hallway and bathroom, as well as to restore lighting and redecorate once it completed the plastering work. The landlord acted reasonably by addressing the issues and raising repair jobs in a timely manner.
According to the landlord’s repairs policy, it should provide a date and time for repairs, but it does not specify how it will communicate this to residents. We would expect the landlord to have agreed on a convenient date with the resident for the repairs; however, its records show no communication confirming this. This lack of communication was unreasonable and could have delayed access to the property, preventing the completion of the repairs.
On 26 January 2023, the resident expressed serious concerns about the safety of her ceiling, stating that it felt very weak. Given the potential health and safety hazards, the landlord should have promptly inspected the ceiling to address her concerns. While it may not have been possible to conduct a full repair within 24 hours, the landlord could have reassured itself and taken preliminary steps to ensure the property was safe.
The landlord scheduled a job to assess and secure the ceiling on 30 January 2023, but it failed to attend the appointment. By not conducting the inspection or providing an explanation for its absence, the landlord likely caused the resident significant inconvenience. Additionally, she had to spend time following up with the landlord for answers. The landlord’s actions were unreasonable.
In its internal correspondence, the landlord noted it would send the resident an insurance claim form so she could file a claim for her damaged belongings. It scheduled repair jobs for 6 February 2023 to secure the ceiling and for 1 March 2023 to replaster the ceiling, restore the lighting, and decorate. However, the landlord’s records do not confirm whether it communicated these appointment dates with the resident. Additionally, there is no evidence that it provided her with the insurance information mentioned in its correspondence.
The landlord’s records do not confirm attendance on the scheduled appointment dates of 6 February and 1 March 2023. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, it should have completed the plastering and decorating work within 28 working days. Its records show that by the resident’s stage 1 complaint response on 13 July 2023, it had not completed these repairs. This was 102 working days outside its repairs period. This was a failing and would have caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience. Furthermore, its records show it did not inspect the safety of the ceiling on 6 February 2023, despite raising a job to do so. This was unreasonable and not in line with its obligation to keep the property safe.
The landlord’s records refer to appointments it completed on 15 and 16 August 2023. It said it inspected the property on 15 August 2023, again it is not clear what actions it completed during these visits. Its internal communication states it inspected the bath, decided it was in good working order and it would not renew it. There is no evidence it communicated this decision to the resident, leading her to keep expecting it to repair or replace her bath. This lack of communication and clarity regarding its plan was unreasonable. The landlord should have managed the resident’s expectation early and informed her it would not replace her bath. It failed to do this.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 29 August 2023, the landlord stated that it had attended on 21 February 2023 to assess the plastering work. During this visit, it determined that the ceiling did not require plastering. It noted that a decorator would cover the existing water marks. It raised an appointment for a decorator to attend on 14 and 15 September 2023 and an electrician for 4 September and plumber for 11 September 2023.
The landlord’s repair records do not provide evidence of this visit on 21 February 2023. The landlord may have inspected the ceiling during this visit and concluded it was safe. It is unclear whether it conducted an inspection of all the damaged areas and if it shared this inspection report and action plan with the resident.
The landlord records show it completed the electrical repairs on 4 September 2023. It said it attended on 11 September 2023 to inspect the front door and the bath panel. It said it did not find any fault with the door and the resident did not allow its contractors inspect the bath panel. Its records do not show that it informed the resident of its finding in relation to the front door.
On 14 September 2023, the landlord’s decorator removed loose paint from the bathroom walls. However, there is no evidence that the decorator returned on 15 September 2023 to complete the works. The landlord’s records indicate it attended on 17 September 2023, but the resident was unavailable. Its records do not show that it confirmed this new appointment date with the resident beforehand in line with its repair’s manual. It was unreasonable for the landlord to assume the resident would be available without prior communication. It should have informed her that it could not attend on 15 September 2023 and arranged another date.
The landlord’s records show the resident pursued repair updates multiple times between 6 December 2023 and 17 January 2024, specifically on 6 December 2023, 12, and 17 January 2024 with minimal response from the landlord. Additionally, there is no evidence of any correspondence from the landlord to the resident from 17 January until the acknowledgment of her stage 1 complaint on 15 April 2024. This lack of communication was a failing and not in line with its repairs policy which states it will keep residents informed on the status of their repairs.
The landlord had not completed the resident’s repairs by 8 April 2024 when the representative raised a second formal complaint on her behalf.
In its second stage 1 complaint response on 8 May 2024 the landlord stated it had completed plastering repairs and renewed the bathroom light switch, renewed the bath panel and the front door. It said it partially upheld the complaint.
The landlord’s response was inadequate, as it failed to acknowledge the significant delays in completing the repairs. It overlooked the incomplete decoration works. Additionally, its records do not confirm that it renewed the bath panel or the front door, despite stating otherwise in its response.
Moreover, the landlord provided no explanation for partially upholding the complaint, it did not to admit any service failures on its part. It should have recognised its shortcomings in resolving the resident’s complaint, taken steps to rectify the situation, and offered compensation. By neglecting to do so, the landlord missed an opportunity to demonstrate accountability and provide meaningful resolution to the resident’s concerns. Also, this response was not in line with its repairs policy which states it will say sorry if it gets things wrong and put it right quickly.
Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 16 July 2024, the landlord apologised for not completing the repairs in the property. It explained that it had made efforts to finish the resident’s repairs but could not do so due to a lack of access. It attempted to attend on 11 and 14 September 2023, 17 October 2023, and 21 November 2023 but could not gain entry on those dates. As a result, it closed the repair orders due to this lack of access. It also stated that the resident should have been aware of the necessary repairs and should have enabled access for the contractors. Following this, it raised new orders for the outstanding jobs.
The landlord’s records show it attended the property on 11 September 2023 in line with the information above. It states it could not find any fault with the front door and the resident did not allow access to inspect the bath panel. It is unclear from its records why the resident did not allow access to her bathroom. Its records show it attended on 14 September 2023 and scrapped off loose paints from the walls in the bathroom. This would suggest that the resident granted access on that day contrary to the landlord’s stage 2 response.
There is no record of the landlord confirming any appointments with the resident on 17 October 2023 and 21 November 2023. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the landlord to expect her to be available without prior notice. It should have confirmed these appointments with her before attending. Furthermore, it was inappropriate to close the repair jobs without informing her of this decision and giving her the opportunity to suggest a suitable date for the repairs.
The tone of the landlord’s stage 2 response complaint response comes across as dismissive and unempathetic. Stating that the resident should have known which repairs it scheduled the contractors to complete was unreasonable. Given the numerous issues she raised and the lack of prior confirmation of repair visits, it would have been challenging for her to communicate the necessary repairs to the contractors. The landlord should have provided clarity regarding the contractors’ attendance, detailed the repairs they would complete, and offered a timeline for these repairs. It failed to fulfil these responsibilities.
Although the landlord made attempts to rectify the situation by re-raising the repair jobs, it did not adequately address the fact that the resident reported some issues as early as 9 January 2023. By the time of its stage 2 response on 16 July 2024, more than 1 year and 6 months had passed since her initial repair requests. The landlord’s response failed to recognise the delay and the distress and inconvenience this situation had caused her.
Additionally, the landlord did not offer any compensation for these shortcomings. This action was inconsistent with its compensation policy, which states that it will consider compensation in cases of service failures that cause distress and inconvenience to residents.

Reports of damp and mould

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould, ‘Its not lifestyle’ which we published in October 2021(the Spotlight report) recommends that landlords should:
1. adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
2. ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
3. review the number of missed appointments in relation to damp and mould and consider what steps may be required to reduce them.
4. identify when an independent, mutually agreed, and suitably qualified surveyor should be used and share the outcomes of all surveys with residents.
5. evaluate what mitigations they can put in place to support residents.
The landlord was under an obligation to ensure the resident’s tenancy was fit for human habitation. This includes a requirement that it be free from damp and mould both under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS provides a risk-based tool for landlords to assess hazards in properties, including from damp and mould. The government have also provided landlords with guidance on its use.
The resident reported damp and mould in the property on 31 January 2023. The landlord’s damp charter states that when it receives reports of damp and mould it will attend the property within 28 days to complete an inspection and diagnose the issue. Its records show it did not book this appointment until 9 May 2023.
This appointment was 70 days outside its damp and mould policy period. This was inappropriate as the landlord did not comply with its obligations to ensure the property was safe and fit for human habitation, minimise hazards and complete repairs within a reasonable time limit. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that it completed an inspection on 9 May 2023 or that it shared the results or action plan from this inspection with the resident. This was a failing and not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould charter or our recommendation with regards to communication around damp and mould.
The resident continued to report damp issues in the property on 15 June 2023 and again in her formal complaint on 13 July 2023. The landlord’s records show that it inspected the property on 15 August 2023. It noted damp on the wall and arranged repairs. However, this inspection occurred more than 6 months after the resident initially reported the damp on 31 January 2023. This was an unreasonably long delay.
The landlord should have taken a more proactive approach in inspecting the property and completing repairs to address the issue, especially given that the resident reported that the damp was causing her skin irritation. The landlord’s actions were inappropriate and inconsistent with relevant policies.
The landlord’s record show it completed a mould wash in the property on 8 November 2023. This was more than 2 months from when it said it would complete repairs on 15 August 2023 and more than 9 months from when the resident first reported the issue. Additionally, there is no evidence to show the landlord discovered the root cause of the damp and mould. Completing the mould wash alone might not have been sufficient to resolve the issue without first understanding what caused it. Also, it should have informed the resident what actions she could complete to prevent the mould from returning. It failed to do this.
The landlord’s record shows the resident continued reporting damp and mould in the property on over 6 occasions between 16 November 2023 and 5 July 2024. There was limited communication from the landlord regarding her reports. This was a failing and not in line with its repairs policy. This lack of communication would understandably have caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint responses did not address the residents reports of damp and mould. As stated earlier, where there are failings by a landlord we will consider if it took reasonable steps to put things right for the resident.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 16 July 2024, the landlord stated it had scheduled an appointment for that same day to complete mould wash and treat the property throughout. It was reasonable of it to consider more robust treatment to resolve the issue instead of only completing damp and mould washes. However, there is no evidence it determined the source of the problem or put plans in place to prevent the mould from returning. Additionally, there is no evidence showing that it agreed the suitability of this appointment with the resident prior to booking it. Considering its previous no access attempts discussed earlier, it would have been appropriate of the landlord to confirm the suitability of this appointment with the resident before scheduling it.
The landlord’s record show it had not resolved the damp and mould issues by its stage 2 response on 16 July 2024. This was 1 year and 5 months from when the resident initially reported the issue on 31 January 2023. Furthermore, it would have been reasonable to have considered the impact of this issue on the resident’s health and prioritised her repair. The landlord failed it act in line with its relevant polices.
In conclusion, the landlord apologised for its failure to complete the damp and mould repairs and it scheduled an appointment to resolve the issue. However, its actions were not proportionate redress for the failings identified in this report. It failed to complete the repairs in line with relevant polices, there were lengthy delays, poor communication and it failed to offer compensation. Furthermore, the resident has informed us that there is still damp and mould in the property.

Compensation

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and damp and mould in the property. The numerous failings in this case, including delays of over 1 year to complete repairs, would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. We have ordered the landlord to take specific actions to resolve the outstanding issues. Additionally, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for where there have been failures over a significant period which have a detrimental impact on the resident. Where the landlord failed to put things right or learn from outcomes.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time operated a 2–stage complaints procedure. It said it would respond to complaints at stage 1 within 20 working days and stage 2 within 25 working days.
The resident made her first stage 1 complaint on 13 July 2023. The landlord issued its response on 28 August 2023. This was 13 days outside its complaints policy time limit. This was a failing.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it will escalate complaints to stage 2 of its process if a resident informs it, they are unhappy with the stage 1 response. It states it will acknowledge stage 2 complaint within 2 working days.
Paragraph 6.11 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states requests for stage 2 must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 2 of the complaint procedure within 5 working days of the escalation request being received.
The resident attempted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 2, 16, and 23 November 2023. It did not acknowledge or escalate her complaints. This was a failing and not in line with its complaints policy.
Due to the landlord’s lack of response to her complaint, the resident asked the representative to raise a second complaint on her behalf. The landlord appropriately responded to this complaint within its policy period. Its subsequent stage 2 response was 4 days out of time. However, it informed the resident that there would be delays in its response. It was reasonable of it to acknowledge this delay and request for an extension.
In her complaints, the resident raised concerns about pest infestation and raised flooring obstructing the door. She also asked the landlord to provide information and assist her in requesting a managers transfer to a different property. The landlord did not respond to these elements of her complaint.
Paragraph 6.7 of the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide apparent reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate for any decisions. In this case the landlord failed to address these elements of the resident’s complaint.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not address or acknowledge its complaint handling failures. It did not show learning or attempt to put things right by providing information on how the resident could request a management move, inform her if it would accept her management transfer application, respond to her pest infestation concerns or her reports of raised flooring. This was not in line with relevant polices.
In conclusion, the landlord failed to follow its complaints policy and the Code in handling the resident’s complaint. There were delays in its stage 1 complaint response, it failed to escalate the resident’s complaint, it did not address all the elements of her complaint and it did not acknowledge or offer compensation for these failings. There was maladministration in its handling the resident’s complaint. As a result, we have ordered compensation of £150 to reflect the impact of these shortcomings. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Review of policies and practice

In this investigation, we have identified failures in the landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling. The record keeping failures are like those identified in similar cases. We have not, however, made any further orders for the landlord to improve this. This is because we had made a wider order which the landlord has now complied with. We expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements its shared with us following the wider order and we will monitor the progress of this.
In February 2022, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. The report recommended the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. In June 2023, we told the landlord of our intention to conduct an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In January 2024, we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement.
In this investigation we have identified failures like those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. We therefore recommend the landlord consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of January 2024.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Repair requests following leaks in the property and subsequent report of damp and mould.
2. complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must complete the following orders and provide evidence of compliance to us:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff must apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This should include failures to evidence its actions around its handling of the resident’s report, the time taken to fully resolve the issue for the resident and not following its complaint and compensation policies. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
2. Pay the resident total sum of £750 compensation broken down as:
  1. £600 for any likely distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of leak, damp, and mould repairs.
  2. £150 for any likely distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling of her formal complaint.
  3. This money should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against her rent account.
3. Confirm from the resident if she still wants to pursue the complaints regarding pest infestation, raised flooring obstructing the door and her request for a management move. If she does, the landlord should respond in line with its complaint’s procedures.
4. Conduct a damp and mould survey in the property and share the result with us and the resident.
5. The landlord should ensure it communicates all appointments to residents in writing prior to attendance.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:
1. The landlord provides details of its insurers to the resident to claim for her damaged items.