London Borough of Lambeth (202410952)

Background

1. The property is in a building that contains 2 flats. The resident’s flat is located on the first and second floor, while the neighbouring flat is on the ground and first floor. She complained about the landlord’s delay in resolving external repairs and said the repair issues were causing damp and mould in her property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of external repairs to the building.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of external repairs.
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not meet timeframes in relation to repairs and this likely led to the resident feeling frustrated and worried about the impact on her own property. It did not show that it considered the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced and did not put things right during the complaints process.
5. The landlord was late in responding at both stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints process. It did not acknowledge this, apologise or offer any form of remedy to put things right.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. On 15 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns about the condition of the neighbouring flat in her building. She reported that Virginia creeper vines from the neighbour’s garden had overgrown, covering the roof and external walls. The vines blocked guttering and outlets which she said caused damp in her property. The resident also raised safeguarding concerns, stating that her neighbour seemed unable to manage his tenancy.
7. The landlord responded on 16 October 2023. It explained that gardening and pruning were usually the tenant’s responsibility. However, due to the safeguarding concerns, it agreed to refer the matter to social care to assess any support needs. This was an appropriate response and showed the landlord had considered the resident’s concerns.
8. The landlord also said it had arranged for a contractor to attend on 24 October 2023. It said that ‘needful jobs would be attended to’. It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the property before deciding what work was required.
9. The landlord confirmed the contractor attended on 24 October 2023. The contractor noted that a climbing plant had covered the back of the property, was blocking guttering and entering the roof. However, no repair jobs were raised until 12 December 2023, 7 weeks later. This was an unreasonable delay and would likely have caused the resident frustration at the lack of progress.
10. On 12 December 2023, the landlord raised two jobs:
    1. One to clear blocked gutters and downpipes, seal joints, and repair roof tiles. It classified the job as an ‘R1 routine repair’.
    2. A second to complete internal works in the neighbouring flat once the external works were completed. This was classed as an ‘R2 routine repair’.
11. The resident contacted the landlord at least 6 times in February and March 2024 for updates. This was likely frustrating because she was only told to allow more time for work completion. The landlord missed an opportunity to provide a meaningful update. Doing so might have prevented repeated calls and saved the resident unnecessary time and trouble.
12. The work to clear the blocked gutter and repair the roof was completed by 9 May 2024. This was 5 months after the job was raised and significantly exceeded the target timeframe of 7 days set out in the landlord’s repairs manual. This delay was unreasonable and could have allowed further damage to occur in the resident’s property.
13. Following contractor advice, the landlord raised a third job on 28 May 2024 to repoint the rear wall. This job was classed as an ‘R2 routine repair’.
14. On the 11 June 2024 the resident raised a complaint as the works were still outstanding. She said she was frustrated at having to contact the landlord again and to chase progress. She attached pictures of her flat, dated 8 June 2024, showing heavy mould on the kitchen wall. She also raised concerns that her neighbour’s property was uninhabitable and attached photos dated 27 May 2024. These showed a collapsed ceiling, mould in the bathroom and hallway and fungi growing near an electrical socket in the kitchen.
15. On 13 June 2024, the landlord told the resident it would provide a one off clearance of the neighbour’s garden. It also said a surveyor would inspect the neighbour’s flat to identify repairs. No evidence has been provided to show that either action was completed.
16. In its stage 1 response on 22 July 2024, the landlord partially upheld the complaint. It agreed repairs were still outstanding and that there had been poor communication with the resident. However, it did not acknowledge a delay in raising works following its contractor attending on 24 October 2023, nor did it acknowledge that the job to clear the gutters and repair the roof was completed outside of its set timeframe. It offered no explanation for the delays. The Housing Ombudsman’s Code says that landlords must acknowledge when something has gone wrong and set out its actions to put things right. The landlord failed to do this in its response.
17. On 29 July 2024, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She told the landlord her property’s condition had deteriorated rapidly. She said ‘in desperation’ she sought advice from this Service because her kitchen cupboards had collapsed. The walls were so damp they could no longer hold them. The email shows the resident’s distress over the impact the unresolved repairs were having on her property.
18. By 4 September 2024, when the landlord issued its stage 2 response, the neighbouring flat and repointing works were still outstanding. It said delays were due to the need to move the neighbour into temporary accommodation. It said the tenant would move in 2-3 weeks, after which it would carry out a full survey and confirm a repair schedule.
19. No evidence has been provided that shows the landlord completed a survey or gave the resident a timescale for the scheduled works. This likely caused further frustration, given her concerns about damage caused to her property from unresolved repairs.
20. While the landlord apologised in its stage 2 response for delays and poor communication, its apology did not adequately put things right. It failed to acknowledge any inconvenience the resident may have experienced, despite her chasing repairs for 11 months. The landlord’s compensation policy has a ‘remedies menu’ of things it can offer when it identifies service failure. It was unreasonable the landlord did not consider any other remedy.
21. The repointing work was completed on 14 March 2025, 10 months after being raised. It should have been done within 28 days, as stated in the landlord’s repairs manual. While it is positive that the issue is now resolved it is unclear why it took over 10 months to complete the work. Overall, the landlord took 15 months to complete the external repairs. This was an unreasonable delay.
22. Through the complaint’s process the landlord acknowledged poor communication and at stage 2 attributed repair delays to it needing to move the tenant below into temporary accommodation. While it is recognised that finding appropriate accommodation for the neighbour will have taken time, the landlord failed to acknowledge multiple failings found in this report and made no attempt to put them right. The additional failings we identified include:
    1. The landlord took 7 weeks to raise repair works following the contractor attending on 24 October 2023.
    2. The work to clear the gutters and fix the roof was completed beyond the set timeframe.
    3. It failed to demonstrate that it met its commitments, in clearing the garden and completing a survey.
    4. It again failed to demonstrate that it met the commitments it made at stage 2, in providing the survey and a timescale of works to the resident.
    5. It failed to implement its compensation policy.
23. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, it would be appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay compensation of £350 broken down as follows:
    1. £100 for time and trouble.
    2. £250 for distress and inconvenience.

24. The landlord updated its complaints policy on 1 April 2024. It said complaints would be acknowledged within 5 working days, stage 1 responses sent within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. It also says that if a response cannot be sent on time, it would contact the resident to explain why and give a new date for response.
25. The resident made a complaint on 11 June 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it on 18 June 2024, 5 working days later in line with its policy.
26. According to its policy, the landlord was due to respond to the complaint by 2 July 2024. The resident chased a response on 5 July and the landlord responded on 22 July, 24 working days after the acknowledgment. This was not in line with its policy.
27. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 29 July 2024 and the landlord responded on 4 September 2024, 27 working days later. It did not contact the resident to explain it would be late responding, this was not in line with its policy.
28. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses did not acknowledge they were late and the landlord did not apologise or offer any other form of remedy to put things right. The landlord’s compensation policy has a ‘remedies menu’ of things it can offer when it identifies service failure which it did not show it considered.
29. The landlord’s complaint responses were both late which would have caused further frustration for the resident as she waited for a resolution. She had to chase a response at stage 1, causing additional time and trouble. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and made an order of compensation for time and trouble in line with its policy.

Learning

Complaints handling

30. The landlord did not demonstrate that it considered its compensation policy in this case. Where delays or service failures cause distress or inconvenience, the landlord is expected to consider financial remedies proactively.

Communication

31. Communication during the complaint’s process was often poor. The landlord is encouraged to consider what it can do to ensure enquiries receive timely, clear and thorough responses. This could include how to ensure customers are provided with realistic expectations to prevent unnecessary chasing by residents.