London Borough of Lambeth (202411410)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411410

Lambeth Council

17 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports about the condition of the kitchen.
2. Reports about the condition of the windows.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The property is a 3-bed ground-floor flat within a converted house. The resident lives in the property with her children.
The landlord has advised us that it does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
On 22 April 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
1. The windows in the flat were “rotting”. She had been unable to open some of them since 2020.
2. Cracks around the window frames allowed insects like slugs to enter the property. They were also causing drafts.
3. The kitchen was in “poor condition” and lacked sufficient cupboards. The landlord had told her she was on a waiting list for a replacement kitchen.
4. There were ongoing leaks from the flat upstairs which were causing damp and mould.
5. The landlord had failed to attend several appointments.
6. She had reported these issues and had been “chasing weekly”.
7. The issues were affecting her wellbeing and that of her children.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 23 May 2024 and responded on 21 June 2024. It said:
1. It upheld the complaint. It acknowledged delays in resolving the ongoing leak and condition of the resident’s kitchen.
2. It had carried out a survey on 21 May 2024. This identified that it needed to carry out the following works:
  1. “Renew” 8 windows.
  2. Trace the leak from the property above.
  3. Carry out a CCTV drainage survey to identify the source of rising damp.
  4. Redecorate the kitchen.
  5. Install a humidistat.
3. The target date for the works was 19 July 2024.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 23 July 2024. She said it had not resolved the leak or carried out any works to the kitchen. She also said that it had not communicated with her.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 19 August 2024. It said:
1. The CCTV survey found no defects.
2. There was an overflowing valve in the property above which had been “leaking for months”. It was trying to gain access to the property above to address this. Once it had resolved the leak and the property had dried out it would start repairs to her home.
3. It upheld the complaint and apologised for delays in addressing the leak and the condition of her kitchen.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. She said it had not resolved the repair issues or offered any compensation for her experience. She escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In October 2024 the resident’s solicitor sent a letter of claim form to the landlord. This initiative housing conditions Pre-Action Protocol under civil procedure rules (CPR). While a letter of claim was issued, we have not been provided with any evidence that the claim has been filed at court. As such, we are satisfied that the issues that the resident has complained about fall within our remit for investigation.

Reports about the condition of the kitchen.

On 22 April 2024 the resident reported that water was leaking from the overflow pipe of the flat above. She said this was causing water ingress to her property.
The landlord’s repairs and damp policy outlines the following response times:
1. Emergency repairs within 1 working day.
2. Routine repairs between 1 and 28 working days.
3. Planned repairs within 90 days.
The resident called the landlord several times in April and May 2024. She stated it had not attended or contacted her about the water ingress. The resident said as a result the kitchen had damp and mould. She described her kitchen as “poorly functioning” and said it was “unsafe” and difficult to use. The records do not show that the landlord responded to her requests for updates. This poor communication was unreasonable. It caused the resident avoidable frustration as she had to invest unnecessary time and trouble.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard under the HHSRS. Therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problem in the property amounts to a hazard that requires remedying.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will “prioritise the removal of mould” and will carry out treatment within 7 days. We have not seen evidence that the landlord carried out an inspection of the mould or carried out a mould wash during the period of the complaint. This was inappropriate.
In July and August 2024 the resident continued to contact the landlord. She said works to repair the leak and renovate the kitchen had not started. She reported that she had slugs, snails, worms and ants in the kitchen. She also said the leak had caused damage to her belongings including her appliances, flooring, and decoration.
By this time it had been 4 months since the resident reported the leak. This far exceeded the emergency and routine repair timeframes outlined in the landlord’s policy. The evidence does not show that the landlord had responded to this report, or that it had raised a job to inspect and carry out repairs as necessary. This was inappropriate.
Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to ensure that properties are fit for human habitation. Pest infestations are a category of prescribed hazards included in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Where the problem is caused by a repair obligation of the landlord, as in this case, the landlord should act. We would have expected the landlord to inspect the property for infestation and if necessary, carry out pest control works. We have seen no evidence that it did so in this case. This was a further failing.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that it was trying to gain access to the property above to address the leak. It said once it had done this and her property had dried out, it would start work to her home.
The landlord’s repairs and damp policy states however that it may not meet its timescales if it cannot gain access to another property to fix a repair. It gives the example of a leak from a flat above. The policy states that in an emergency it can force entry to the neighbouring property “if necessary”.
We have seen no evidence of action taken by the landlord to gain entry to the property above to resolve the leak. We would reasonably expect it to have attempted to contact the resident of the flat above by telephone, in writing, or by knocking on the door. We have not seen evidence of this. Nor have we seen that it sought advice about whether it could take legal action to gain entry. We would have expected the landlord to carry out such proportionate action. That it has not evidenced that it did so was inappropriate and a missed opportunity to resolve the resident’s repairs.
The evidence shows the landlord forced entry to the resident’s neighbour’s home on 21 August 2024. It found the boiler leaking from the pressure release valve and carried out a repair to stop the leak.
The records from the forced entry state that the property was “vacant”. It is therefore unclear why it took the landlord so long to gain entry. Landlords have processes in place where they suspect a property to be abandoned. There is no record that it carried out any investigations in this case. This was a further missed opportunity.
The resident chased the landlord for updates several times between August and September 2024. On 19 September 2024 it told her it could not carry out work to the kitchen as the property had not dried out. It provided the resident with a dehumidifier on 20 September 2024.
It is not clear why the landlord did not provide the resident with a dehumidifier sooner. Failure to provide one when it resolved the ingress from the property above caused further avoidable delays.
On 4 October 2024 the resident’s solicitor issued a letter before claim to the landlord citing disrepair. The issues raised included damp, mould, and repair issues in the kitchen.
The landlord accepted in its complaint responses that there had been failings in its handling of reports about the condition of the kitchen. It has also advised the Ombudsman at the time of writing this report that it intends to make a settlement offer to the resident. It states that its offer will include an agreement to complete the repairs within 120 days.
Where the landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
As the landlord has not yet made an offer, we cannot determine whether it is in line with our remedies guidance. While it says it will agree to complete the repairs within 120 days, at the time of this report they are outstanding.
It took the landlord 4 months to resolve the leak. The kitchen repairs remain outstanding 1 year after the resident reported them. There is no evidence to suggest that these delays were beyond the landlord’s control or unavoidable. As such, the length of time taken to address the issues has been entirely unreasonable.
The resident and her children have been living with damp, mould, and insects in the kitchen for a year. Despite her regularly chasing for updates the landlord failed to carry out any works to address the potential hazards of mould and pest infestation reported by the resident. The resident has experienced evident distress and inconvenience due to the conditions she reported.
We have concluded that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports about the condition of the kitchen. This is because the landlord failed to take appropriate action to put things right prior to the resident contacting the Ombudsman. The repairs remain outstanding and the landlord has so far offered no redress.
The resident has paid approximately £653 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s maladministration. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that the resident’s use and enjoyment of the kitchen has been affected by outstanding repairs (12 months).
Considering the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £1,959 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 25% of the total rent during the period in question. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account.
The compensation for loss of amenity is not intended to be a rent refund, or rebate. Rather, rent provides an objective basis for approximating the loss of amenity.
We also consider that the landlord should pay the resident £300 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the issue.

Reports about the condition of the windows.

The resident contacted the landlord in January 2023 and said it had previously told her that it would replace her windows. She asked for an update.
Following the resident’s call the landlord attended the resident’s property to “overhaul” the windows. The notes show it intended to draft proof the windows and paint them externally. The operative said that the resident “refused” the repairs as she said she “want[ed] new windows”.
The obligation on the landlord under the tenancy agreement, is to repair and maintain the windows. It was therefore reasonable for it to try to carry out repairs. Installing new windows would amount to an improvement or upgrade. There is no obligation on the landlord to carry out such works beyond any cyclical repairs or planned improvement works. We acknowledge that landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly. Generally, landlords are not obliged to offer improvements or upgrades except where this is the only reasonable means of making a full and effective repair.
We would however expect the landlord to explain to the resident whether it intended to replace the windows. As the resident was under the impression that the landlord was going to replace the windows it should have given an approximate timeframe. This may have more effectively managed the resident’s expectations and prevented avoidable disappointment.
On 10 April 2023 the resident reported one of her windows had been smashed. The landlord attended on the same day and boarded up the window and ordered replacement glass. It replaced the broken glass pane on 5 May 2023. The landlord’s response to this repair was within its policy timeframes and was therefore reasonable.
Between 5 May 2023 and 14 July 2023 the resident called the landlord 3 times requesting an update on her window replacement. The evidence does not show that the landlord provided a response. This was another example of poor communication which caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble. If the landlord was not intending to replace the windows it would have been appropriate for it to advise the resident as such so that her expectations were appropriately managed. That it did not was a missed opportunity
On 18 October 2023 the resident again reported that her windows were “rotting”. The landlord attended on 2 November 2023, this was within its policy timescales and was therefore reasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 November 2023 and asked a surveyor to inspect her windows. She said the frames were “rotten” and that slugs were entering the property through gaps in the window frames. The landlord advised it would make a referral to its planned works programme for replacement. This was a reasonable, albeit overdue, response.
On 15 November 2023 the resident reported that her kitchen window needed repair. The landlord attended 2 weeks later and replaced the glass pane. This was within its repair timeframes.
The resident told the landlord in January 2024 that her property was cold due to the windows and asked it to complete an inspection. She called again in March 2024 and again asked for an inspection. The landlord did not carry out an inspection at that time. If it did not feel an inspection was required, we would have expected it to explain this to the resident. That it did not do so was unreasonable.
On 9 April 2024 the landlord attended to repair the windows. The resident said she did not want it to repair the windows, she wanted them to be surveyed and replaced with UPVC. The operative advised her to contact the landlord and request a survey. As the resident had already done so several times to no avail, this advice caused her evident and understandable frustration.
In May 2024 she told the landlord drafts were entering the property due to the windows and she could see her curtains “blowing” when the windows were shut.
The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government. It states that properties should provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. Given the resident’s reports, we would have expected the landlord to assess whether the windows were causing the property to be unreasonably cold.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response that it had carried out a survey of her property on 21 May 2024. The landlord has not provided us with a report showing the findings of the survey. Nor does the survey appear on the landlord’s repair records. We cannot therefore determine whether the landlord’s subsequent actions were reasonable considering its findings.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response that 8 windows required “renewal”. It is not clear whether this meant the landlord intended to repair or replace the windows. Given that the resident said it had previously told her it would replace them, the landlord should have provided more clarity.
The resident’s letter before claim sent in October 2024 raised the issue of “defective” windows in the living room, 2 bedrooms, and the bathroom.
As previously stated, the landlord has accepted that there have been failings in its handling of reports about the windows. It has advised that it intends to make a settlement offer to the resident which will include an agreement to complete the repairs within 120 days. It has not yet however made an offer or completed the required repairs.
We therefore find that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports about the condition of the windows. This is because the landlord did not take reasonable action to resolve the issue before to the resident contacted us. The repairs remain outstanding and the landlord has so far not offered financial redress.
We consider that the landlord should pay the resident £600 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its handling of her reports about the windows.

Complaint handling.

It took the landlord 42 working days to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The delay was caused by the landlord’s failure to acknowledge and log the complaint promptly and in line with the 5 working-day timeframe outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint handling Code (the Code).
Within its stage 1 complaint response the landlord stated it had received her complaint on 23 May 2024. This was not the case. The evidence shows it received the email on 22 April 2024. That the landlord did not acknowledge and apologise for this delay was a further failing and a missed opportunity to put things right and provide redress.
Within its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged delays in resolving the leak and kitchen repairs. It also accepted that the windows needed to be replaced. This was positive.
The landlord agreed to complete the required works by 19 July 2024. However, it failed to complete any of the works within this timeframe. It therefore mismanaged the resident’s expectations causing her avoidable distress and time and trouble in escalating her complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within the timeframe outlined in the Code and its own policy.
The Code states landlords must address all issues raised in the complaint. The landlord failed to do so in its stage 2 response. It did not address the resident’s concerns about her windows or her request for compensation for her damaged kitchen appliances and other belongings. This was unreasonable.
While the landlord acknowledged service failures in both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, it did not offer any financial redress. It therefore failed to put the resident back in the position she would have been in if there was no service failure. This was unreasonable and a missed opportunity.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Delayed in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
2. Failed to acknowledge the correct date on which she made the complaint.
3. Failed to adhere to the timescales outlined in its stage 1 complaint response to complete the repairs.
4. Did not address all the issues in its stage 2 complaint response.
5. Failed to offer any financial redress despite acknowledging failings.
We therefore find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about the condition of the kitchen.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about the condition of the windows.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £3,109, this comprises:
  1. £1,959 for reduced use and enjoyment of the kitchen due to its handling of reports about the condition of the kitchen.
  2. £300 for distress and inconvenience due to its handling of reports about the condition of the kitchen.
  3. £600 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its handling of reports about the condition of the windows.
  4. £250 for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.