Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Lambeth (202335573)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335573

London Borough of Lambeth

8 October 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 reports of damp and mould, and the subsequent repairs.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 2 bedroom lower ground and ground floor flat in a terraced 4 storey building, on a weekly periodic tenancy since 2013. The landlord is a local council.
  2. The landlord’s records show damp was first reported around June 2019. At that time the landlord arranged a damp survey and a number of repairs were identified. The landlord’s records indicate the first phase of repair works was completed by April 2022 and a new survey was needed before phase 2 of the works could begin.
  3. A further survey was carried out on 20 May 2022 which identified moderately high levels of damp. Some repairs were carried out but others were only partially completed and others were not started. As a result, the resident complained to the landlord on 22 August 2023 about the time things were taking, and how the disruption was affecting her son who had autism.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response was sent on 22 September 2023. It said a surveyor had recently attended. A number of works had been identified and carried out, and further works were planned. The resident chased the landlord over the repairs on 6 November 2023 and it acknowledged she wanted the complaint escalated to stage 2 on 10 November 2023. It said a response would be issued by 11 December 2023.
  5. The resident liaised with the landlord over works in November 2023, but having heard nothing further, she chased it again on 9 January 2024. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint on 10 January 2024, and sent its stage 2 response the following day. It reiterated its apology, acknowledged a number of repairs were outstanding, and provided details of further works that were needed. It accepted its service had fallen short and as well as apologising, it offered £350 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble and the delays she had experienced. This was not accepted.
  6. The resident continued to chase the landlord on several occasions, to complete the repairs. The landlord told us it had settled a disrepair claim from the resident out of court. However, the resident has said the landlord has not completed all the necessary repairs and the landlord has said it is investigating that.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the interests of the Ombudsman investigating issues that are still ‘live’, it is our practice to limit the scope of our investigations to a reasonable period prior to the formal complaint being made, that usually being 12 months. In this case, while damp seems to have been reported since 2019, it is apparent that matters escalated in August 2023 when the complaint was made. While earlier reports of issues have provided important context to the current complaint, this investigation is focused on events from when phase 2 of the repairs were due to start, from May 2022 onwards. We have also considered events following the landlord’s final response as the issue remained unresolved.
  2. The resident has reported her family has health issues as a result of damp. While we are an alternative to a court, we are unable to establish whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action, had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the subsequent repairs

  1. In addition to the landlord’s legal obligations in respect of repairs and hazards within the property, we published a Spotlight report on Damp and Mould in October 2021. This stated landlords should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould”. The report said landlords should take “proactive interventions” in its approach to diagnosing damp and mould issues in its properties.
  2. The landlord produced a report setting out changes it has put in place as a result of the Spotlight report, which included establishing a ‘Healthy Homes Partnership’ and implementing a suite of strategic, preventative, and reactive measures and initiatives to tackle damp and mould. There is therefore evidence of the landlord taking steps to improve the way it deals with damp and mould cases, which is positive. However, in this case, there were extensive delays in it addressing the damp and mould issues, and associated repairs.
  3. The landlord’s repairs and damp policy says it would prioritise the removal of mould with an initial wash and treatment to be carried out within 7 days. It would arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 days, or sooner in emergency situations, and write an action plan to resolve the damp, with timeframes. It says if the home has persistent damp, a surveyor would be allocated to act as a Healthy Homes Partner and a resident’s point of contact. They would arrange the necessary work and stay in touch until it is completed.
  4. We have not reviewed the action taken by the landlord when damp was first reported, as it pre-dates this investigation, but we have seen that a surveyor was allocated, and they liaised with the landlord and resident over repairs. However, there is evidence that when the resident chased the surveyor for an update on the repairs on 11 October 2022 and 12 June 2024, she was told on both occasions another surveyor had been appointed. It should not have taken the resident to have to chase up repairs to find that out. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have advised her of the change of surveyors in advance and that amounts to poor communication.
  5. The survey carried out on 20 May 2022, in advance of the second phase of damp repairs noted there was rising damp resulting from the apparent absence of an effective damp proof course. It also identified water ingress at the base of the walls and from external defects. It recommended a number of repairs.
  6. The landlord created a job for the phase 2 damp repairs on 20 June 2022. However, it took a month for the landlord to act on the findings of the surveyor’s report. This was not indicative of it taking a proactive approach to addressing damp. This is also demonstrated by the fact it then took a further 2 months, until 20 August 2022, for the first repairs to start.
  7. In addition, during that 3 month period the resident chased the landlord twice to find out when the works were going to be happening. This was a further example of the landlord’s poor communication. The landlord’s repairs and damp policy says in order to prevent damp it surveys properties to allow for more targeted maintenance and “better communication on proposed work”. Having reviewed the evidence provided, it is clear that having had the property surveyed, the resident had to chase the landlord for information about the proposed works to address the damp on many occasions. The landlord did not adhere to its own policy. Its failure to take a proactive approach to updating the resident clearly added to the resident’s frustration over several years, when she was already living in a very difficult situation. This was something the landlord could have helped alleviate had it ensured the works were actively managed and the resident kept regularly updated.
  8. In August 2022, the landlord carried out some repairs to the kitchen, utility and drains. However, once completed the resident advised some of the works were unfinished. There were several other repairs throughout the property that needed addressing and on 31 August 2022, the landlord asked the surveyor to assess what works still needed to be done.
  9. It is not known whether the surveyor attended, but the evidence shows the resident chased the landlord to complete the works on 30 August 2022, 20 and 21 September 2022 and 3 October 2022. The resident’s email of 3 October 2022 explained the outstanding works were affecting her son who had autism, as he needed his own space. The resident stressed she wanted the bedrooms completed by Christmas as her family had been living with damp for years.
  10. The resident chased the landlord again on 11 October 2022 and was told a new surveyor would be in touch. The landlord’s records refer to the kitchen sink and washing machine being reinstated on 31 October 2022, but this was 2 months after the kitchen work should have been completed. This was an unreasonable delay.
  11. There is no evidence of any other work being done until August 2023, and this prompted the resident to complain that the works had been left for over a year. The landlord did then carry out a survey which found there was still damp in the property and listed a number of recommended repairs.
  12. The resident chased the landlord for an update on the planned repairs on 6 November 2023. She was told on 16 November 2023 that it had discussed her concerns with a senior surveyor and it asked her for information about the outstanding works. The resident explained on 27 November 2023:
    1. A mould wash in the bathroom had been done and a new hand basin installed but there were broken tiles that needed replacing around the sink and bath. A new bath panel was needed and she had been told the fan did not need replacing.
    2. Works were still needed in the utility room as there was a live fitting hanging down.
    3. Her son’s bedroom radiator was disconnected so he was staying in the front bedroom when it was cold and she was sleeping in the living room.
    4. There were cracks in the bay window due to damp and it needed protective paint applied and the front window was rotten.
    5. New flooring was needed on the basement floor and in the main bedroom.
  13. In December 2023 the landlord fixed the socket in the utility room and did a mould wash in the bathroom. However, the resident chased the landlord again on 9 January 2024 because she had not had a response to her list of works sent on 27 November 2023. The landlord addressed this 2 days later in its stage 2 response to the complaint, but on 22 April 2024 the resident informed us the repairs had still not been carried out. She chased the landlord again on 24 April 2024 and 12 June 2024. It was at this time she was told that another new surveyor had been appointed who would be in touch with her, but she received no update on when the works would be completed.
  14. The landlord sent a letter to all residents on 10 July 2024, informing them it had ended its contract with its responsive repairs contractor, and a new company would take over from 1 August 2024. The resident was told by the landlord on 18 July 2024 that her outstanding repairs would be dealt with by the new company, but it could not say when work would begin. The resident explained on 2 August 2024 that her family had only been able to use one bedroom as the living room was used as a bedroom due to her son’s bedroom radiator being off the wall for over a year. She had 3 radiators in total not in use and the landlord asked her to report the issue with the radiators to its call centre.
  15. It is not known whether the resident did contact the call centre but by this point it had been over 2 years since the landlord should have started the phase 2 damp works and repairs, and not all work had been completed. While we appreciate the landlord went through a period of change in July 2024, to simply signpost the resident to its call centre when it was already aware of the work needed, was unreasonable. It could have taken a more proactive stance and followed up on the outstanding repairs in order have them prioritised rather than put the onus on the resident.
  16. The landlord has told us that despite a number of repairs still being needed, the job was closed down in September 2024. It is not known how or why that happened, but it is unreasonable for the remaining repairs to have been overlooked. The landlord has said it is now arranging for the outstanding works to be completed, however, some repairs have been outstanding for over 3 years. While it is positive the landlord has said works will be arranged, we note it had previously provided similar assurances.
  17. The number of delays dealing with the damp and the subsequent repairs, along with the poor communication throughout, amounts to severe maladministration. The landlord has not dealt with reports of damp in a prompt and proactive manner. The delays have had a significant impact on the resident and her family. She and her son have been displaced from their bedrooms during the winter months as a result of the damp and not having heating in her son’s bedroom. Having to constantly chase the landlord over several years exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship. The landlord has repeatedly failed to provide a reasonable service or communicate effectively with the resident, demonstrating that it was not learning from the case. These failures have accumulated over a significant period of time, and the evidence shows the resident has been caused ongoing frustration by the landlord’s lack of action.
  18. Where there has been severe maladministration, our remedies guidance suggests compensation over £1,000 would be reasonable. The landlord’s compensation policy says compensation can be paid where there is a loss of amenity (a usable room), but it is not known how long the son’s bedroom was unusable. It may have been used in the summer, but not in the winter. It therefore makes it difficult to calculate compensation exactly in that way.
  19. It is clear the resident and her family have been inconvenienced for a long time. To recognise this, a payment of compensation would be appropriate that would take in to account the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays which caused frustration and the time and trouble the resident went to having to constantly chase to get work done. In addition, while we cannot easily establish a fair reduction in rent to reflect that one of the bedrooms was not usable for a while, we can order that the landlord should pay compensation to reflect that for 3 years, the family had to live in damp difficult conditions while waiting for the phase 2 repairs to be carried out. We also note it will take further time to finally complete all works.
  20. The claim settled recently between the parties for £5,000 as well as legal costs. The resident was legally represented so it is fair to assume she was given competent legal advice on the settlement, and the £5,000 awarded in damages reasonably resolved her complaint.
  21. This amount took in to account the damp and mould issue that formed this investigation, and this amount of compensation exceeds what we would be likely to direct, by way of remedy. We are unable to go behind the terms of an agreement already made between the parties. It is clear though that the compensation paid by the landlord and accepted by the resident, took in to account the issue being considered here and was reasonable.
  22. However, while the amount of compensation is reasonable, the offer itself was not made during the internal complaints procedure. This indicates the landlord did not give adequate and timely consideration to its complaints policy or compensation policy. It did not invoke remedies at the earliest possible stage, and when it did, it was insufficient. The financial remedy now offered provides, in our opinion, an appropriate level of redress in accordance with our remedies guidance and we will not award any further financial remedy. However, as the compensation was not offered during the complaint process, we have made a finding of severe maladministration rather than one of reasonable redress. We have also ordered that the landlord complete the outstanding works.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint’s policy says there are 2 stages to its complaints process. The first is known as local resolution, where the landlord should issue a response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. If a complaint is escalated, it moves to final review, and a response should be issued within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation. At both stages if an extension is required, the resident should be notified.
  2. In this case, the landlord acknowledged the complaint the day after it was made and informed the resident a response would be sent by 20 September 2023 and that it would tell the resident if there was likely to be a delay. The landlord’s response was not sent until 22 September 2023, therefore it did not adhere to the timescales it had promised, and it was unreasonable that it did not tell the resident its response was going to be delayed.
  3. While the landlord did apologise for the delay at the first stage, having acknowledged on 10 November 2023 that the complaint had been escalated, and promising a response by 11 December 2023, it then sent its final response a month late, and only after the resident chased it up.
  4. The landlord did apologise again for the delay in its complaint handling, but when it offered £350 compensation because its service had fallen short, it was not clear whether this amount took in to account the complaint handling.
  5. Overall, the landlord failed to adhere to the timescales set out in its complaints policy, at both stages of the complaints process. While it is positive the landlord apologised and recognised its failings, its service level did not improve. This meant the resident had to go to the trouble of chasing things up and indicates it failed to learn from its mistakes. This amounts to maladministration.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy refers to it considering payments of compensation of £50 to £250 where a resident has had to go to time and trouble to deal with matters. That is the case here. Not only did the resident have to chase the landlord to address the substantive issue of damp and mould repairs, but she was inconvenienced by not having her complaint addressed in a timely way at both stages. To recognise the impact this had, the landlord should pay her compensation of £150. This amount is in line not only with the landlord’s compensation policy but also our guidance, and takes in to account that although there were delays, the landlord did address the complaint and made an offer to try and put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the subsequent repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this report. This should be from a member of its senior management team.
    2. Paid the resident £150 in recognition of the frustration caused by the identified complaint handling failures.
    3. Conducted an inspection to assess whether there are any outstanding repair issues associated with damp and mould. If repairs are outstanding, the landlord should confirm an action plan that outlines what the repairs are and when it anticipates completing them. The outcome of the inspection must be shared with this Service and the resident. The landlord must provide us with evidence that it shared the action plan with the resident.