From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Lambeth (202423875)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423875

Lambeth Council

20 June 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:
    1. reports of damp and mould.
    2. reports of broken fencing.
    3. bathroom works.
    4. the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord in a 2-bedroom flat. She lives with her daughter. Both have physical health conditions. Her daughter also suffers from depression and claustrophobia.
  2. On 24 January 2024 the resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom. The landlord carried out a mould wash on 19 February 2024. The resident made a formal complaint on 12 April 2024, explaining that an original appointment on 6 February 2024 had been rearranged, but the landlord had not come out to inspect. She asked for a full inspection of the issue.
  3. On 13 May 2024 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. It said it would aim to inspect the damp and mould by 20 May 2024 and apologised for the delay. The same day, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. She said the situation had caused her significant stress. She also explained that her garden fence had blown down on 24 January 2024, and the landlord had done nothing about it. She said the fence had fallen on her kitchen door and made her feel trapped. She also described how this had affected her health and well-being. She requested compensation.
  4. On 3 July 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It apologised for the poor communication and said its contractor would arrange a damp and mould inspection. It also said someone would contact the resident to repair the fence. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delayed response, its lack of communication concerning the damp and mould and the broken fence trapping her in the property.
  5. In December 2024 the landlord began major works on the bathroom. On 6 January 2025 the resident raised another formal complaint. She said she had no access to her bath or washbasin, was unhappy with the landlord’s communication, and that the temporary toilet it provided was inconvenient. She wanted compensation for this.
  6. On 13 January 2025 the landlord issued a new stage 1 response. It confirmed that most bathroom fixtures had been installed, including a new toilet and gave future dates for finishing the work. It would follow up with its surveyor regarding other bathroom repairs, and it apologised for not discussing the option of moving her out before the works started. The next day, the resident asked to escalate the complaint. She said there had been a lack of communication from the complaints team and its contractors. She explained the bathroom had been stripped out without any proper alternative in place and described the situation as degrading, inconvenient and very stressful.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 19 February 2025. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience. It claimed that its contractors had confirmed appointments, and a temporary toilet was provided, but accepted it needed emptying after 2 days. It recognised that the works were intrusive, but said a temporary move was not necessary.
  8. Unhappy with the landlord’s responses, the resident asked us to investigate. She said the landlord failed to repair the garden fence, and that she was unable to get out of the back of her house. She said there were delays in dealing with the damp and mould, and that the bathroom remained in a poor condition. She felt the landlord’s communication throughout had been poor and explained that the situation affected her health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of this matter led to a deterioration in her health. We cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and well-being. This is outside our jurisdiction. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience this situation may have caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. After the resident first reported damp and mould, the landlord acted reasonably and arranged to inspect the issue on 6 February 2024. However, this appointment did not go ahead as planned due to a misunderstanding by the resident. The landlord then attended on 19 February 2024 and carried out a mould wash. This was an appropriate initial step.
  3. However, the landlord failed to follow up with a proper inspection. The resident said in her April 2024 complaint that she had been calling the landlord to request an inspection. While the landlord has not provided us with a copy of its call records, which may indicate issues with the landlord’s record-keeping, it did not dispute this. This caused unnecessary time and trouble for the resident. The landlord also failed to act in line with its damp charter, which states it will arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 days.
  4. In its May 2024 stage 1 response the landlord said it would aim to inspect the damp and mould by 20 May 2024. However, it failed to do so. This was a broken promise that caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had already experienced unreasonable delays, which she said had caused her ‘a lot’ of stress.
  5. The landlord acknowledged this in its July 2024 final response and offered £100 compensation. It also explained that it had arranged for its contractor to carry out an inspection. However, its records suggest that the inspection happened in October 2024, over 8 months after the resident first reported the damp and mould. And the resident had to chase updates repeatedly. This caused further distress as well as time and trouble for the resident.
  6. Repair notes from 17 December 2024 stated that the bathroom wall was ‘covered’ in damp and black mould due to a burst pipe. Our Spotlight report on damp and mould outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’. It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage residents’ expectations’. In this case, the resident was left exposed to damp and mould in the property for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s inability to investigate the issue promptly.
  7. As such, the £100 offered was not enough to put right the failures identified in this report. There was a considerable delay in inspecting the property, and the resident lived with damp and mould for a prolonged period. The landlord did not adequately consider the distress and inconvenience caused by this, or the potential health implications of mould. The adverse effect caused was significant, especially given the household’s health conditions.
  8. Additionally, the landlord’s communication was poor. There is no evidence it carried out a risk assessment or agreed on an action plan to resolve the damp and mould issues. Nor was there evidence that it arranged the required work within a reasonable timescale and that it stayed in touch with her until the works were completed. This was contrary to its damp and mould charter. This amounts to maladministration. In line with our remedies guidance, awards up to £1,000 should be considered where we have found failures that have caused a significant adverse effect. In view of this, orders are made below for remedy.

The landlord’s handling of reports of broken fencing

  1. In her May 2024 escalation request, the resident said she had reported broken fencing on 24 January 2024. She explained that it had fallen, blocking her kitchen door, and made her feel trapped. The landlord’s July 2024 final response did not dispute this. Its repair records showed it first raised the repair on 19 April 2024. However, the landlord failed to attend within its repair policy timescales.
  2. This is concerning as its records noted that the fence was in the way of the back door. In this case, the landlord should have considered whether this repair needed to be prioritised for ‘quicker action’ as outlined in its policy. However, there was no evidence that it considered this. Nor was there any evidence it had considered whether this was a health and safety issue that it needed to deal with promptly or as an emergency. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who felt unsafe and confined in her own home. There were also failures in communication with the resident chasing the landlord on several occasions for updates.
  3. It was not until 25 October 2024 that the landlord attended to repair the fence. This was over 6 months after it raised the repair. By then, the neighbour had fixed it themselves. Although it is unclear when this happened, the resident said the matter was unresolved for around 8 months. We recognise this caused ongoing stress to the household.
  4. Overall, the landlord’s handling of this matter was poor. It failed to arrange the repair within its policy timescale, and its communication was unsatisfactory. The resident described how this situation had made her feel stressed and trapped. The landlord’s lack of action demonstrated that it did not properly consider the effect on the household, especially given her daughter’s mental health conditions. This amounts to maladministration, and an order for compensation has been made below.

The landlord’s handling of bathroom works

  1. Works began on 9 December 2024 due to damp and mould damage. The work included fitting a new bath, toilet and wash hand basin. In the resident’s referral to us, she said she had no access to a proper toilet for 3 days. The landlord initially provided a bucket, but her daughter could not use it because of her physical health needs.
  2. The landlord’s repair records showed that it quickly realised that a bucket was unsuitable on 10 December 2024 and supplied a chemical toilet instead. However, the landlord should have planned for this before starting the work, especially given the household’s vulnerabilities.
  3. While it would generally be reasonable for a landlord to provide a temporary toilet for 3 days’ work, landlords should notify residents in advance. Yet there is no evidence that the landlord notified the resident that she would be without basic bathroom facilities. This indicates issues with the landlord’s communication and planning. It should have also considered whether compensation should have been paid for the inconvenience this would cause.
  4. The resident said the situation made her feel degraded and that she had lost her dignity. We would expect to see evidence that the landlord had considered the household’s human rights before removing the toilet, and whether a temporary toilet was appropriate to meet the household’s needs. In doing so, the landlord should have also assessed whether a temporary move was needed. There is no evidence that it considered these factors. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as she felt the landlord was treating the household like “animals”.
  5. Although the landlord completed most of the bathroom work within a reasonable timescale, the resident said that there were still outstanding works. She said she does not have a bathroom door, and the flooring remains damaged. The landlord’s February 2025 final response said it had booked ‘snagging’ works for 14 February 2025 and the flooring repair for 17 February 2025. However, there is no evidence that these appointments happened, and the landlord’s records showed the resident regularly chased for updates.
  6. The landlord’s final response acknowledged that the works were intrusive but necessary. While this may be the case, there was no evidence it considered the household’s needs, and it failed to complete all the work within its repair policy timescales. The evidence also showed that some work had to be recalled, suggesting it was not done to a satisfactory standard. In any case, the resident has been without a fully usable bathroom for a considerable period. This is unreasonable, and the effect on the household has been significant, with work still outstanding to date. This amounts to maladministration, and orders have been made below for remedy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident first complained on 12 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 19 April 2024, 7 days later. It issued its stage 1 on 13 May 2024, around a month later. This was contrary to its policy timescales, which state it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days. While these were minor delays, it did not explain or apologise for this. Its stage 1 response also lacked detail and failed to show any learning. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who felt the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
  2. After the 13 May 2024 escalation, the landlord did not issue its stage 2 final response until 3 July 2024 – 37 working days later. This was nearly double the landlord’s 20 working day policy timescale. Although the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay and offered compensation, it is unclear how much of this was directly related to the late response.
  3. There was also another stage 2 delay following the resident’s 14 January 2025 escalation request concerning the bathroom works. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 final response until 19 February 2025 – 27 working days later. Although this was a minor delay, it showed a pattern of delayed responses and a lack of learning on the landlord’s part. And the landlord failed to apologise for this delay in its final response. This caused frustration for the resident who experienced repeated delays throughout the complaints process. This reflects a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, and an order of compensation has been made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of broken fencing.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of bathroom works.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. In addition to the £100 already paid, pay the resident further compensation of £1,650, made up of:
      1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
      2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of broken fencing.
      3. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of bathroom works.
      4. £50 for the frustration caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Inspect the bathroom and arrange an action plan to address any repairs identified as a result of this. If the landlord identifies any repairs or remedial works, these must be carried out within its repair timescales. The landlord must provide a copy of the action plan and timescales to the resident and this Service.
  2. Within the next 6 weeks, the landlord must:
    1. Review the failings identified in this report and confirm in writing to the resident and this Service what steps the landlord has taken/or will take to prevent similar issues in the future.