London Borough of Lambeth (202321721)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321721

Lambeth Council

13 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 report of water ingress into his flat.
2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

3. The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord’s property since 1998. The property is a sixth floor flat. At the time of the complaint the resident had rented out the property to a tenant. While it is noted that the leaseholder did not live in the property at the time of the complaint, he will be referred to as the ‘resident’ in this report.
4. On 29 May 2023 the resident told the landlord that a leak was coming through his kitchen ceiling from the above flat (Flat A). The landlord attended the same day but was unable to gain access into Flat A.
5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord the following day. He said the landlord had told him that it was unable to force entry into Flat A when it was unable to gain access. He considered, given the potential damage from the leak, the landlord’s response was “inadequate”. He said that the landlord had not considered the anxiety and frustration the situation had caused him and his tenant.
6. On 6 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said the leak had not come from Flat A, but from the eighth floor. It said that it had contained the leak on 30 June 2023 and would carry out follow up repairs.
7. On the same day the resident escalated his complaint. He said:
   1. the landlord had previously told him that the leak was caused by faulty bathroom tiles in Flat A, and it would repair them on 17 July 2023. As the landlord’s response differed, his complaint had not been resolved.
   2. the leak was ongoing although the landlord stated it had contained it on 30 June 2023.
8. On 30 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said there were a number of properties which needed to be assessed to ensure the matter was completely resolved. It said it would carry out works to those flats on 31 August 2023.
9. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and said that he wanted the leak to be resolved and compensated.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into his flat

10. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will:
    1. ensure that current and historical repairs information (repairs raised, works completed) is accurately recorded to allow for a clear audit trail.
    2. attend emergency repairs within 24 hours.
    3. consider forcing entry to fix a repair in an emergency, in circumstances such as, “if water is dripping through a ceiling”. The policy states that it such circumstances it will need access to the property above to fix the leak.
    4. repair a leaking bath within 7 days. Routine repairs would be carried out within 28 days.
11. When the resident reported that the leak was coming through his kitchen ceiling on 29 May 2023, the landlord attended Flat A the same day.  This was appropriate. However, it was unable to gain access. From the evidence that has been provided to us, it is unclear whether the landlord took reasonable and timely steps to progress the repair following this visit. Its repair policy stated that it could consider forcing entry in an emergency where water is dripping through a ceiling. Therefore, given the resident’s report, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider this course of action and made a record of its decision. There is no evidence that it did so, that is unreasonable.
12. While the date is unclear, the landlord’s records show that it considered the leak was emanating from Flat A. It noted that it would attend on 29 June 2023 to repair the bath seal and renew the tiling around the bath within Flat A. There is no evidence that this work was completed on this date or any other date around this time.
13. The landlord raised another order to renew the tiling in September 2023, suggesting that the repair had not been completed prior to this. As such, the evidence we have been provided with indicates that the landlord failed to resolve the leak for a period of approximately 3 months.
14. The landlord’s repair policy stated that it would attend and repair leaking baths within 7 days and carry out routine repairs within 28 days. Therefore, while the reason that the landlord did not progress this repair is unclear, that it did not was a failing. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience as the leak was ongoing during this period and he had expressed concern about the damage it may cause.
15. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that the leak was coming from the eighth floor, and that it had been contained on 30 June 2023. It confirmed that follow up works were required. While the landlord’s comments are noted, we have not been provided with any contemporaneous evidence in relation to this leak. As a result, it is unclear how the landlord determined that it was this which had caused the water ingress into the resident’s property and that it was not owing to repairs at Flat A.
16. In his complaint, the resident told the landlord that the leak was ongoing. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to conduct further investigations into the source of the leak, or to post-inspect the work that it said had been done to contain the leak. It was not until 30 August 2023 that it found that there was an “active” leak on the eighth floor. The evidence suggests that this was a leak coming from a communal area on the floor. It is unclear if this was the same leak that the landlord believed it had contained, or if it was a new escape of water. However, this information should reasonably have been recorded within its repairs log and should reasonably have been explained to the resident during the complaints process.
17. It is noted that between June and September 2023 the landlord was investigating other potential sources of the leak. This included attending other flats within the resident’s building. This was reasonable and it is acknowledged that finding the cause of a leak in a residential building can be challenging. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord kept in reasonable contact with the resident about the leaks during this period. As he was concerned that the landlord had provided him with different causes of the leak, the lack of updates would have caused him distress and inconvenience.
18. There is evidence to show that the landlord continued to investigate the leak on eighth floor and carry out the repairs in Flat A after it issued its stage 2 complaint response. However, whether these repairs were successfully carried out and resolved the leak into the resident’s flat is unclear. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss whether he has any outstanding concerns about the leak.
19. Overall, our investigation shows that the landlord delayed progressing repairs in Flat A by approximately 3 months. There is also no evidence that it carried out any post inspections on the 8th floor to ensure the leak remained contained. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into his flat.
20. As highlighted above, there have been several instances where the landlord failed to provide contemporaneous records of the outcome of its repairs and visits. In particular the repairs that it stated were completed in its stage 1 complaint response.
21. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
22. It is unclear whether the landlord does not have this information, if no record was kept, or if the landlord simply failed to provide it for the purposes of this investigation. Regardless, this is a record keeping failing. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
23. We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on knowledge and information management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

The landlord’s complaint handling

24. The landlord’s complaint policy states:
    1. it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
    2. if it needs to extend its response deadline, it will explain the reasons to the resident and provide a revised timescale for the response.
25. It took the landlord 27 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint and 39 working days to respond to his stage 2 complaint. The landlord’s responses were significantly delayed and outside of its policy timescales of 10 and 20 working days respectively.
26. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delays during the course of the complaints process. It should reasonably have done so. It should have also apologised for the delay and provided the resident with an explanation as to why it had been unable to respond to his complaint in a timely manner. That it did not do so was a failing and missed opportunity to try to put things right
27. The resident raised several concerns in his complaints. These included the landlord’s decision to not force entry into Flat A on 29 May 2023 and that it had told him different explanations regarding the source of the leak. However, the landlord failed to address these issues in its responses. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must address all aspects of a resident’s complaint. This was particular important in this case, as the resident had explained the situation was causing him frustration.
28. Addressing the resident’s concerns, in particularly about the different causes of the leak, may have provided him with reassurance that the landlord had listened to his concerns. This may have mitigated any further frustration and inconvenience caused and demonstrated to the resident that the landlord was appropriately investigating the cause of the leak. Therefore, while the reason that the landlord did not address them is unclear, that it did not was unreasonable.
29. Taking into consideration the highlighted failings, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. A series of orders have been made to put matters right.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into his flat
31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

33. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
    2. pay the resident £400 compensation, which is comprised of:
       1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into his flat.
       2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. contact the resident to confirm that the leak has been resolved.
    4. remind its staff to respond to:
       1. complaints within its policy timescales and if its unable to do so, it must inform the resident in with its policy.
       2. all aspects of a complaint, in line with the Code.
34. Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must carry out a case review, taking into consideration the failings outlined in this report, it should:
    1. review its record keeping practices in relation to its repair logs and visits. While doing so, it should consider our May 2023 ‘Knowledge and Information’ spotlight report.
    2. review its repair procedure. In particular, it should ensure that staff members are taking ownership of the cases and are proactively monitoring and progressing repairs to completion within a timely manner.