Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London Borough of Lambeth (202422218)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422218

London Borough of Lambeth

5 September 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 response to the resident’s reports of an uneven garden surface.
  2. This report has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with a private garden, owned and managed by the landlord. The landlord, which is a local authority, let the property to the resident under a secure tenancy agreement in April 2022. The landlord is aware the resident has poor mobility. The resident has been supported in making her complaint by a family member who, for the purposes of this report, will be referred to as Ms A.
  2. On 5 October 2023 the resident told the landlord she had fallen and cut her head in the garden. She said that the flagstones were uneven and needed replacing. The landlord completed works on 1 May 2024 to lay a concrete pathway and patio area. It inspected the paving on 2 August 2024 and deemed the repairs to have been completed satisfactorily.
  3. On 2 May 2024 Ms A raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on behalf of the resident. She stated that, while it had installed a path around the edge and middle of the garden, it had done little to address her safety concerns. She provided photos of the garden, and requested “a thorough review” and appropriate action to ensure the garden was “fully functional and safe” for the resident to use.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 May 2024, and replied to the resident on 21June 2024. It stated that, from the photos she had sent it, the paving appeared to be in good condition and level. However, she had not provided any specific details of her outstanding safety concerns. The landlord added that, if Ms A remained concerned that the property was not safe for the resident, she could request an OT assessment.
  5. Ms A replied to the landlord on 21 June 2024 to escalate the resident’s complaint. She said it had not inspected the garden and that “simply adding a path in the middle of the garden and levelling some slabs” did not make it safe. She added that, while she understood that garden maintenance was the resident’s responsibility, the work it had carried out was “not satisfactory”.
  6. The landlord sent the resident a final response on 14 August 2024 where it apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused by its lack of communication. It added that:
    1. In-person reviews were “not a standard procedure”. However, it would address any outstanding issues during an inspection, which it had scheduled for 23 August 2024.
    2. it apologised for its “lack of a thorough investigation” and incorrectly passing the issue between departments. It had passed this on as feedback to the relevant teams to “improve its overall service”.
    3. as of 1 August 2024, it had changed its contractor to “ensure a higher standard of work”.
  7. On 6 September 2024 the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She explained that the resident continued to live in “unsafe conditions” because the garden was full of bricks, stones and weeds. She wanted them to be removed and for the garden to be “maintained to a decent standard”. She added that the landlord had scheduled an inspection for 23 August 2024 but nobody had arrived, and it had not provided any updates.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us that in or around May 2024 an Occupational Therapist (OT) had carried out an assessment of the resident’s garden. She said that she had not heard back from the OT since then. The OTs are part of the local authority’s adult social care services, which are separate to those of the council in its capacity as a social landlord. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to assess the services provided by the OT. This is because adult social care falls under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may be able to refer any complaint about the actions and/or decisions of an OT to the LGSCO for further investigation if she remains dissatisfied.
  2. Ms A stated that, as a result of the uneven garden surface, the resident had fallen, causing an injury that required hospital treatment. We acknowledge the serious nature of the resident’s concerns. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. These are more appropriately addressed via the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of any failings by the landlord

Uneven garden surface

  1. The landlord’s repairs manual states that residents are responsible for garden maintenance. It also says that it prioritises repairs for vulnerable residents and that it may support them with certain repairs that would normally be their responsibility. It goes on to say that vulnerable residents will have access to a comprehensive property inspection to identify necessary repairs and adaptations. Where necessary, it will refer cases to its Home Improvement Agency. This provides advice and assistance to vulnerable residents who want to repair, improve or adapt their homes.
  2. The repairs manual also states that the landlord will complete routine repairs within 28 working days, and planned repairs within 90 days.
  3. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) lists 29 common hazards, the impacts these hazards can have, and the potential causes. This includes falling on level surfaces such as floors, yards and paths.
  4. The landlord is required to have regard to a residents disability in line with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord is also required to make reasonable adjustments taking into account a known disability.
  5. On 5 October 2023 the resident reported that her garden slabs were uneven, and had caused her to have a fall. The landlord acted appropriately by raising works to replace them. However, despite being put on notice about the risks of the uneven paving, it did not complete the work until 1 May 2024, around 7 months later. This was significantly outside its timescales for completing both routine and planned repairs, and therefore a departure from its policy. Furthermore, it was not until 2 August 2024 that it had carried out a post-inspection to check the work had been completed satisfactorily. There is no evidence the landlord or contractor communicated with the resident about the delays.
  6. The landlord’s protracted repair management put the resident at ongoing risk of trips and falls in her garden for an excessive amount of time. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had taken the matter seriously, properly considered the resident’s vulnerabilities or made any effort to prioritise the repair. This is a failing, and a departure from the commitment in its repairs manual to prioritise repairs for vulnerable residents. Furthermore, the resident was unable to safely use her garden for around 7 months. The landlord’s delay in addressing this would likely have put her at an unfair disadvantage for that period of time.
  7. On 4 April 2024, the landlord advised Ms A to contact the local authority’s Home Improvement Agency. This was in response to her ongoing safety concerns about the unevenness of the unpaved surfaces. The landlord stated that, once the agency received her referral, it would visit the property and discuss the resident’s needs. It explained that it could offer advice and guidance about applying for grants and finding suitable contractors. Tenants are responsible for garden maintenance, therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to services she could access for advice and support.
  8. However, it could have further reiterated this advice in its complaint responses and provided the agency’s contact information. This would have demonstrated greater customer focus. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it could also have considered making a referral to its Home Improvement Agency itself.
  9. Ms A had not specified what her ongoing concerns were, despite the landlord asking her for more information in its stage 1 response. It was therefore reasonable for it to signpost Ms A to the appropriate support service. This would have ensured the resident was provided with suitable advice to enable her to have full use and enjoyment of her garden. We note that Ms A did make contact with the OT service and that it had carried out an OT assessment of the garden around May 2024.
  10. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. We apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
  11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by its lack of communication. It also provided Ms A with details of how the resident could claim for personal injury through its insurer. This was appropriate. However, it did not acknowledge its excessive delay in completing works to her garden, or its failure to follow its repairs policy in its response to a vulnerable resident.
  12. Furthermore, it did not offer the resident any redress in recognition of its failings, or explain how it had learnt from the outcome of the complaint. For this reason, we have made a finding of maladministration and will order the landlord to pay the resident £400. This is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in replacing the garden slabs, which resulted in avoidable, ongoing safety concerns.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s customer care and complaints policy sets out a 2 stage formal complaints process. This states that it will:
    1. acknowledge all complaints within 2 working days.
    2. respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days.
    3. respond to stage 2 complaints within 25 working days.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlord must clearly explain the reason for any delays to the resident and provide them with the contact details of the Ombudsman.
  3. It took the landlord 34 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and 38 working days to issue a stage 2 response. There is no evidence it had tried to contact the resident to explain the reason for the delays, agree new timescales or provide her with the Ombudsman’s contact details. This was both a departure from both its own complaints policy and the Code.
  4. The Code requires landlords to track any actions outlined in complaint responses through to completion. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not do this. In its stage 2 response it told the resident that it had scheduled an inspection of the garden for 23 August 2024. However, the resident told us that the landlord failed to attend, and had not contacted her to offer any explanation or reschedule the appointment.
  5. The landlord did not acknowledge its delayed complaint responses or lack of contact about those delays. For this reason, we have made a finding of service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an uneven garden surface.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident in line with the our guidance on making apologies. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £500, calculated as:
      1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in replacing garden paving.
      2. £100 for the impact caused by its poor complaint handling.
  2. Within 8 weeks of receiving this report the landlord must carry out a review on how it responded to a repairs for a vulnerable resident in this case. It should consider whether there are any changes and/or improvements it should make to its repairs service to ensure similar delays are avoided in future. It must provide the Ombudsman with details of the review, and any changes it has made to its services within the above mentioned timescale.