Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Lambeth (202433359)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433359

London Borough of Lambeth

15 July 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. A radiator repair.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. He lives with his family in a 5-bedroom property.
  2. On 4 June 2024 the resident raised a complaint because the landlord’s contractor missed a repair appointment scheduled for 3 June 2024. He said he had not received any communication from the contractor and had discovered that the landlord had noted the repair appointment as ‘completed’ on 31 May 2024. He wanted to know how this had happened and when the repair would be completed. The contractor contacted the resident that day (4 June 2024) and a new repair appointment was arranged for 12 June 2024.
  3. On 11 June 2024 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. Around 1pm on 12 June 2024 the resident complained directly to the contractor as it had not attended his property that morning as agreed. The contractor attended around 6pm that day and completed the repair. On 13 June 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. He said he was unhappy with the lack of communication from the contractor the day before and its late attendance. He said he wanted to know what actions the landlord would take to address poor service from the contractor. On 19 June 2024 the contractor responded to the resident’s complaint of 12 June 2024. It apologised for service issues and issued £40 compensation, £20 for each missed appointment.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 July 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for missed appointments on 3 and 12 June 2024. It confirmed that appropriate compensation had been issued by the contractor and said it had reminded staff about the importance of accurate record keeping. On 22 August 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the lack of communication and that all elements of his complaint had not been addressed. He asked why the landlord’s complaint response took 8 weeks and he wanted compensation for time and trouble related to the landlord’s repair and complaint handling.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 November 2024, and it apologised for its delayed response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged the missed appointments. It said that the £40 compensation already offered for the missed appointments was appropriate.
  6. The resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He wanted to know what the landlord would do to prevent similar repair and complaint handling issues, and he asked for compensation for his time and trouble dealing with the issue.

Legal and Policy Framework

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states it is responsible for the maintenance and repair of heating systems.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend routine repairs within 28 days. It also states it requires its contractors to abide by its customer service standards.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy offers compensation in a range of circumstances including contractor failure, missed appointments and for time and trouble.

The landlord’s handling of the radiator repair

  1. The resident complained that the contractor missed repair appointments on 3 and 12 June 2024. The landlord did not dispute this. It upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised for the missed attendances and confirmed that the £40 compensation offered by the contractor was proportionate and in line with its compensation policy. However, the resident also felt that the landlord did not take appropriate action to prevent this happening again.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the appointment scheduled for 3 June was wrongly recorded as ‘completed on 31 May 2024’. This likely led to the contractor not attending on 3 June 2024. As soon as the contractor was aware of the missed appointment it contacted the resident, and an appointment was arranged for 12 June 2024 (am) to complete the bathroom radiator repair.
  3. However, the contractor did not attend on the morning of 12 June 2024 as scheduled. Following the resident’s complaint to the contractor at 1pm that day the contractor did attend around 6pm and the repair was fully completed. As the landlord did attend that day, albeit much later, it would be reasonable to consider that the contractor’s attendance was delayed as opposed to missed, nevertheless the landlord and contractor treated the delay as a missed appointment.
  4. The resident stated he believed the contractor only arrived on 12 June 2024 because he had complained directly to it that day. The landlord’s repair log does not show a record of the repair appointment scheduled for 12 June 2024 which raises a concern that the appointment had not been appropriately recorded. The resident’s view that the landlord only attended in response to his complaint that day is understandable as the contractor said the delay was due to a system fault and it is not clear if the repair appointment was in fact recorded.
  5. In this case the resident experienced 2 incidents of poor service within a short space of time and both incidences related to record keeping failures. As such the resident’s frustration was understandable. Consistent record keeping is necessary to ensure landlords can monitor repair issues and respond appropriately.
  6. While it would not be fair or realistic to expect landlords to be able to prevent all record keeping issues when they do occur it is important that landlords are transparent and take appropriate steps to put things right. In this case in its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged record keeping issues and confirmed it had reminded staff of the importance of maintaining clear, accurate and up-to-date records to help prevent such problems happening again. The contractor also confirmed it conducted an investigation into the relevant system issues to prevent further occurrences. These were reasonable and proportionate actions in response to the issues raised.
  7. The routine repair was fully resolved within 7 working days of the original missed attendance. The landlord also treated the delayed attendance on 12 June 2024 as a missed appointment and provided compensation which demonstrated a commitment to recognising the inconvenience the resident experienced.
  8. The apology, £40 compensation and learning noted were appropriate steps by the landlord to acknowledge the inconvenience the resident experienced and to address the root cause of the service issues. These steps were reasonable and proportionate to the failings identified. It is the Ombudsman’s view therefore that the landlord has therefore offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process which is in line with The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the code). It states its stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days of acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord’s policy states if it needs longer to investigate a complaint, it will agree an extension with the complainant.
  2. The landlord’s file shows the resident made a complaint on 4 June 2024 and it was acknowledged by the landlord on 11 June 2024, 5 days later. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 June 2024 to raise further issues within the complaint investigation. We have seen no evidence that this was acknowledged by the landlord. The code states that if a resident raises additional complaints during the stage 1 complaint investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response. The resident stated that the landlord did not address his complaint of 13 June 2024 in its stage 1 response. However, the landlord did refer to the missed attendance on 12 June 2024 in its stage 1 response and it therefore acted appropriately and in accordance with the code.
  3. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until 29 July 2024. We acknowledge that the resident states the response was delayed by 8 weeks. However, allowing for the 10-day response time the complaint was 24 working days late. The landlord failed to request a ten-day stage 1 extension, which was a breach of its own complaints policy. The resident sent a chaser email to the landlord on 15 July 2024 but there is no evidence the landlord to acknowledged this. This lack of communication was not appropriate and added to the resident’s frustration.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response apologised for the missed attendances and noted learning. It also confirmed that the compensation awarded was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy for missed appointments. These were appropriate steps to put things right however an acknowledgement of poor communication would also have been an appropriate positive step to rebuild trust and relationship with the resident.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 8 November 2024 after the resident’s escalation request on 22 August 2024. Allowing for the 20-day response period this response was 31 working days late. The landlord again failed to request a 20-day stage 2 extension as detailed in its complaints policy and the code. This was a further missed opportunity to appropriately keep the resident informed. Given the delay at stage 1 this further poor communication added to the resident’s frustration.
  6. The stage 2 response acknowledged theresident’sstage 1 complaint handling concerns. These includedits failure to acknowledge the follow-up complaint on 13 June 2024, the lack of response to the 15 July 2024 chaser email andthe delayedstage 1 response. However, it did not assess its stage 1 complaint handling or provide a reason for its delayed stage 2 response. It also failed to consider compensation for complaint handling delays which would have been appropriate under its compensationfor policy
  7. In summary, the landlord failed to appropriately communicate with the resident.  It did not follow its complaint policy or consider compensation for failings identified which would have been appropriate. For these reasons it is the Ombudsman’s view that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation which is at the lower end of the compensation range. This recognises that while the complaint response delays were not excessive the landlord failed to identify its failings or take appropriate steps to put things right. It is also in line with our remedy’s guidance for maladministration where “the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.”
  8. In February 2022 we issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its complaint handling. However, we continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance and in 2023 we carried out an inspection to find out the reasons for its ongoing failures in complaint handling. In December 2023 we issued a report setting out our findings with further recommendations for service improvement. In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those that led to our special report in 2022 and subsequent inspection in 2023. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our inspection report of December 2023. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the radiator repair.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the complaint handling failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for time and trouble related to complaint handling delays.
    3. Complete a review of the compliant handling failings in this case, with reference to our previous special investigation into complaint handling, and provide this service and the resident a copy of actions identified to improve complaint handling going forward.