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 (202411513)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411513

Lambeth Council

12 February 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 leaseholder 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 leaseholder’s:
    1. Reports of water ingress and associated outstanding repairs.
    2. Complaint.
  2. This report has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

  1. The leaseholder lives in a 2-bedroom flat on the ground and lower ground floors of a converted end of terrace house. The landlord is the freeholder of the property.
  2. The landlord has not provided us with any information relating to the events leading up to the leaseholder’s complaint. However, she has stated in her correspondence that she first reported damp in her property on 27 July 2023. The landlord has provided limited records of its communications with the leaseholder and no repair logs. It is therefore unclear what action, if any, it took following her report.
  3. The records show that the leaseholder raised a stage 1 complaint via telephone on 8 November 2023. She stated that the landlord had not attended to a leak she had reported, and she was getting no response from the contractor. She added that she wanted a surveyor to inspect the damp and mould in her property that was making her “sick and poorly”. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 November 2023, stating it would respond by 6 December 2023. It sent her its stage 1 response on 16 January 2024, which stated that:
    1. it was sorry about the experience the leaseholder had been having with regard to the leak into her property, and the delays in getting it repaired.
    2. the contractor it scheduled to attend the site on 23 January 2024 would assess the extent of the works required.
    3. if the contractor found a small damp patch, it would deal with it promptly. However, if the affected areas were found to be extensive, it would refer the job to a specialist contractor.
    4. it was sorry for the impact that damp and mould had had on her and damage it had caused to her property. It advised her that, once the works were complete, she should contact her insurers “in the first instance” in respect of any damage?
    5. in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, it upheld her complaint.
  4. The leaseholder wrote to the landlord on 28 February 2024 to say that, since its inspection on 23 January 2024, nothing had happened. She stated that an appointment had been booked for that day, but nobody had attended. She called the contractor 3 times to check if someone was coming but did not get a reply. The records show that the contractor attended the property again on 28 March 2024 to carry out a CCTV survey of the soil stack.
  5. The evidence shows that the landlord escalated the leaseholder’s complaint on 8 March 2024. It is unclear whether it told her it had done this, or whether it had sent an acknowledgement informing her it was investigating her complaint at stage 2. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 April 2024. It stated that:
    1. its contractor had attended the property on 26 February 2024 and carried out an inspection “and some work”.
    2. it had attended again on 4 April 2024 and completed works to unblock the rainwater goods and clear the flat roof.
    3. it had also carried out external repairs and provided photos of the completed work.

Post-complaint procedure

  1. On 29 April 2024 the leaseholder’s solicitor sent the landlord a pre-action protocol letter for a disrepair claim. The solicitor instructed a surveyor to inspect the property on 3 May 2024. The survey found significant damp in the 2 bedrooms. It stated that damp stains, cracks, and elevated damp readings in the living room and bedroom walls were likely caused by cracks in the external brickwork. It added that this allowed “damp penetration and water to track into the living room and downwards” to the bedroom below. The report observed that the decorative finishes within the property were “untarnished” apart from the “areas affected by damp”. The surveyor recommended a number of works. These included repointing of the external wall to the living room and internal redecoration.
  2. On 13 June 2024, the leaseholder wrote to the landlord to ask when it would repair her toilet, which she said its contractor had previously damaged. She wrote to it again on 19 June 2024, through her local councillor. She stated that, after 11 months of not being able to use her bedroom, nothing had been done. The contractor had missed appointments, and the landlord had not replied to her requests for compensation. She added that, although it had cleaned the gutters, the landlord had still not repaired the damaged external wall causing water ingress into her property.
  3. The leaseholder contacted the Ombudsman on 9 July 2024. She stated that on 27 July 2023, she had reported damp and mould in her property which was caused by a damaged soil stack. She said that the landlord’s contractor had previously damaged her toilet when it put a camera through it. She added that the “newer” damp issue was due to a blocked gutter, and a damaged external wall that was allowing damp into property. She stated that she could not use her bedroom or sell her flat until those issues were resolved. The leaseholder wanted the landlord to repair the soil stack and the external wall that was making her property damp.
  4. The records show that between July and October 2024 the leaseholder wrote to the landlord several times to chase the status of her repairs. She told this Service on 19 December 2024 that the repairs to the soil stack and external wall remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The leaseholder has explained that the impact of damp and mould in her property has negatively impacted her physical and mental health. While we acknowledge the leaseholder’s comments, 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 by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one), as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the leaseholder.

Policies, procedures and legal obligations

  1. The lease states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good order and condition the exterior walls or the building as well as “the whole of the structure, roof, gutters and rainwater pipes”. It is also responsible for maintaining the foundations and main drains of the building of which the property forms part.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy prioritises response times according to the urgency of the repair. It states it will attend to emergency repairs within 2 hours and aim to fix them within 24 hours. It aims to fix routine repairs within 3 to 28 days depending on what the repair entails and whether the government’s right to repair scheme is applicable.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2 stage formal complaints process. The first stage is referred to as “local resolution”, while stage 2 is referred to as the “final review”. At both stages, the landlord logs the complaint and sends an acknowledgement within 5 working days. It aims to issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. If an extension is needed, the landlord will contact the complainant to explain why and provide a revised timescale. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that if extensions beyond 10 working days are required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it should consider applying a remedy when, after investigating a complaint, it finds that a failure in service has occurred that has had an adverse effect on the occupant. The policy does not specify any amounts of discretionary compensation it will pay.

Reports of water ingress, and associated outstanding repairs

  1. Our spotlight report “Damp and mould. It’s not lifestyle”, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident.
  2. It also advises that the landlord must ensure there is effective internal communication between its teams and departments. One individual or team should have overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare.
  3. In addition to policy timescales, the landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
  4. In response to our request for evidence, the landlord has provided limited records. We have not been provided with repairs or communication logs. It is unknown whether this evidence does exist, and if the landlord has failed to provide it, or if the landlord failed to keep appropriate records. Nevertheless, it has been difficult for us to establish what steps the landlord took to address the outstanding repairs. However, the evidence suggests there were 3 factors that contributed to the damp issues the leaseholder had reported.
  5. The leaseholder told us that she had reported damp and mould in her property on 27 July 2023. She stated that this had been caused by a leak from the soil stack connected to her toilet. The date on which the leaseholder reported the damp and mould has not been disputed by the landlord. The evidence also shows that the landlord was in contact with the leaseholder with regard to repairing the damaged soil stack. It is evident therefore that the landlord had taken responsibility for the repair. However, the evidence provided by the landlord does not demonstrate that it then took appropriate action to ensure that any necessary repairs were completed in a timely manner.
  6. The records indicate that a further issue was penetrating damp, which was caused by blocked gutters and downpipes and a damaged external wall adjacent to the living room. It is evident that rainwater from the overflowing gutters and downpipe was entering the property through the missing mortar on the brickwork. The leaseholder had reported this matter was when she raised her stage 1 complaint on 8 November 2023. However, it was not until 23 January 2024, nearly 3 months later, that the landlord first inspected the report. It is unclear why the landlord did not attend sooner. Furthermore, there are no records to show the landlord had contacted the leaseholder during that time to provide any updates or reassurance it was progressing the repair.
  7. As the landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports, it is unclear what findings or recommendations contractors had made following visits to the site. However, there is evidence it had carried out a CCTV survey of the soil stack on 28 March 2024. It is unclear why it took a further 2 months, following the stage 1 complaint response, for this to take place. Furthermore, although the contractor advised that its report was “to follow”, the landlord has not provided a copy of a report from this inspection. It is therefore unclear what recommendations were made. However, there is an internal record from June 2024 suggesting the landlord was facing difficulties repairing the soil stack because it was 3 metres “deep underground”. It is unclear what further action it took following this.
  8. The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving a leak is not always straightforward. It is acknowledged there can be physical challenges as in this case, or it can be a matter of ruling out causes until the source is identified. For this reason, that the landlord conducted a CCTV survey of the soil stack was appropriate. However, where obstacles are identified or a process of elimination is required, the Ombudsman would expect to see an action plan developed by the landlord. This should be overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source of a leak is identified at the earliest opportunity, and a prompt remedy is then implemented. The landlord was unable to demonstrate that it had taken appropriate and timely action to find the leak and to then complete a repair. This was a failure.
  9. It is noted that the landlord had still not confirmed to the leaseholder whether it had repaired the soil stack, This was around 17 months after she had reported the matter. This was an unreasonable delay that caused the leaseholder unnecessary ongoing distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to inform her whether the repair has been completed. If it has not, the landlord must explain why and give the leaseholder a timetable as to when it plans to complete the necessary works.
  10. The landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint that its contractor attended on 26 February 2024 to carry out an inspection and carry out “some work”. Due to its poor record keeping, it has been unable to evidence what work it had carried out and the reason for the inspection. Furthermore, there is no information on the findings of this inspection. The stage 2 response also confirmed the landlord had unblocked the gutters and downpipe on 4 April 2024. This was 5 months after the leaseholder had reported the matter. We acknowledged that the landlord may have had to erect scaffolding in order to carry out this work. However, there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the time taken to complete the repair was proportionate to the work required, or that the landlord experienced delays beyond its control.
  11. The leaseholder has told this Service that the repair to the external wall remained outstanding. The inspection carried out as part of the leaseholder’s disrepair claim attributed high moisture levels in the property to missing mortar and damaged brickwork. The inspection was completed on 1 May 2024, following the conclusion of the complaints process. It recommended works to repair the wall and the records show that scaffolding went up in October 2024. The landlord must confirm to the leaseholder when the repairs to the external wall are scheduled for, and ensure it updates the leaseholder regularly until the work is completed.
  12. Landlords should reasonably give details and timescales for any actions they plan to take. They should also keep residents regularly updated and informed. Such action is recommended in our guidance to landlords for repairs complaints, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  13. The available records show that the landlord consistently failed to provide updates or respond to the leaseholder’s enquiries. Furthermore, it is evident contractors had failed to attend pre-arranged appointments, without notice. The landlord and its contractor’s poor communication and lack of customer focus caused her unnecessary additional distress and inconvenience. There is evidence the leaseholder had to make significant efforts to try and progress the outstanding repairs, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s repairing obligations. The evidence shows it consistently failed to meet its repair timescales, which was a significant departure from its repairs policy.
  14. We accept that contractors might not be able to attend appointments due to capacity issues or busy periods and their services are in high demand. However, the landlord’s contractors are accountable to its service agreement to enable it to complete repairs within a reasonable time. There is no evidence of effective contract monitoring by the landlord to ensure its contractors were providing a service that was in line with its repairs policy for completing repairs. Landlords should ensure its contractors always contacts  residents when operatives are unable to attend to repair appointments. There are no records to show that the contractor was communicating regularly and effectively with the leaseholder. This was a failing.
  15. The Service recognises the landlord may have had some challenges with its contractors. However, its lack of any effective repair management meant that it failed to ensure that the repairs were proactively managed and responded to. Furthermore, there are no records to show the landlord considered appointing a specific team to take overall responsibility for co-ordinating the repair. The failure to do so would have contributed to its overall failure in responding to the leaseholder’s reports of water ingress, and the subsequent excessive delays in completing the necessary works.
  16. It is noted that, in its stage 1 response, the landlord advised the leaseholder to contact her insurance provider to make a claim for damage to the inside of her property. Under the terms of the lease the landlord is obliged to maintain the structure of the property including the external walls. Given this, it was reasonable for it to have signposted her to its own insurer to make a claim for damages.
  17. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
  18. The leaseholder has told this Service that she was unable to use the rooms affected by damp. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the risks and discomfort of living with damp or mould, we have not seen any evidence to suggest that the damp was so significant that the leaseholder could not use any of the rooms or live in the property. However, the evidence shows that there were significant delays carrying out inspections and repairs. The landlord is unable to demonstrate it completed most of the repairs the leaseholder had reported. Although it stated in its stage 2 response that it had completed external repairs it is unclear, due to its poor records, which works it was referring to or when it had completed the work.
  19. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged the impact of damp on the leaseholder. However, it failed to take any accountability for its failure to carry out repairs within a reasonable time, or for its poor communication. Furthermore, there is no evidence it had considered offering the leaseholder any compensation in recognition of the impact its failings had on her enjoyment of her property or the time taken to progress the repairs. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we therefore order the landlord to pay the leaseholder compensation of £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.

Complaint

  1. It took the landlord 47 working days to respond to the leaseholder’s stage 1 complaint. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord sent her any updates during this time, explained the reason for the delay or made any attempt to agree on any new timescales with her. This was a departure from its complaints policy and the Code.
  2. Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping, it is unclear when the leaseholder had asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. There is evidence she wrote to it on 24 January 2024 and 28 February 2024 expressing continuing dissatisfaction with its service. However, neither of those communications mentioned that she wanted to escalate her complaint. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord had acknowledged her request.
  3. The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. While we have not had sight of the leaseholder’s escalation request, the landlord’s response was notably brief and lacked any detail.  For example, it stated in its stage 2 response that it had carried out an inspection and carried out some work. It provided no information on the outcome of the inspection or the work it said it had completed.
  4. Furthermore, it stated that it had “also carried out external repairs” but failed to give any further details about them. Moreover, it failed to provide any explanation as to why the repairs were delayed or when they would likely be completed. Given the leaseholder has stated that most of the repairs she reported remained outstanding, the unnecessarily brief responses would have only served to cause further unnecessary confusion. It exacerbated the leaseholder’s uncertainty over whether the repairs would be completed.
  5. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling. It departed from its complaints policy and the Code. Furthermore, at both stages, it failed to thoroughly investigate the leaseholder’s complaint. It provided inadequate and unnecessarily brief responses. It missed the opportunity through its complaint handling to acknowledge its failings, put things right, and to learn from outcomes. It also a missed the opportunity to provide a proper explanation for its poor service and made no attempt to restore the leaseholder’s confidence in its service.
  6. Given the above, and in line with our Remedies Guidance, we order the landlord to pay the leaseholder £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.
  7. In the Ombudsman’s report following its inspection of the landlord’s complaint handling, published in January 2024, made a number of recommendations. We will continue to monitor the landlord’s complaints handling against those recommendations.

Record keeping

  1. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
  2. As referenced frequently throughout this report, the landlord’s record keeping was poor. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information”. It further states that a landlord’s failings to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
  3. The evidence the landlord provided to this Service in response to our requests for information was severely lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019 stresses the importance of landlord’s and its contractors keeping comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates. In this case, the landlord has failed to keep appropriate records. Overall, the quality of the evidence supplied by the landlord significantly hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation.
  5. We have previously reviewed the landlord’s record keeping as part of a special report published in February 2022. We found that: “Incomplete records meant that the landlord could not evidence it had appropriately diagnosed or completed repairs it was responsible for, so could not satisfy itself or the Ombudsman that it had fulfilled its obligations or acted reasonably. It also meant that it was unable to track or monitor repairs in real time or follow up on outstanding repairs, which exacerbated delays. This also meant that it could not provide accurate information to residents when they made enquiries. We also found that poor record keeping hampered the landlord’s ability to respond in a meaningful way to complaints”.
  6. The findings in our special report are equally as applicable to the findings in this complaint investigation. This is disappointing to note as the events giving rise to the leaseholder’s complaint occurred over 1 year after we published the special report.
  7. The Ombudsman continues to keep the landlord’s record keeping under review through our casework. In September 2023 we ordered it to carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations made in our spotlight report (case reference 202204121). In response to that, the landlord carried out a gap analysis and drafted a strategy and action plan. It consulted with residents on the draft plan. In its latest update to us in September 2024, it advised us the plan was with its senior management team for sign off.
  8. Given this, we have made no orders relating to record keeping in this investigation report. However, we would encourage the landlord to keep its records strategy and action plan under regular review. It should continue to seek resident feedback and learn from its complaints, particularly where record keeping failings have been identified.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s reports of water ingress and associated outstanding repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should must:
    1. apologise to the leaseholder for the failures identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. A senior member of the landlord’s staff should make the apology.
    2. pay the leaseholder £900 compensation broken down as follows:
      1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its response to the leaseholder’s reports of water ingress and associated outstanding repairs.
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its complaint handling.
    3. provide the leaseholder with the contact details of its insurer and details on how to claim for damages to property caused by the landlord’s failure to meet its repair obligations.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should carry out a full inspection of the property. It should ensure the survey is carried out by persons suitably qualified to assess all of the following:
    1. any outstanding works required to the external wall to prevent penetrating damp.
    2. any outstanding works required to repair the leak to the soil stack connected to the leaseholder’s property.
  3. Once it has completed the repairs survey, and within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should write to the leaseholder. This must:
    1. summarise the findings of the inspection.
    2. explain what remedial action it has taken.
    3. provide timescales within which it will complete any remaining repairs.
  4. Following completion of the repairs, the landlord must offer reasonable compensation to the leaseholder for the further delays in completing the repairs from the point it issued its stage 2 response on 16 April 2024.