London Borough of Lambeth (202342651)

Background

1. The resident has lived in the property as a leaseholder since 2012. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident is looking to remortgage her home.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord dealt with:
   1. Reports of subsidence and related damage.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was maladministration in how the landlord dealt with:
   1. Reports of subsidence and related damage.
   2. The resident’s complaint.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

How the landlord dealt with reports of subsidence and related damage

5. The landlord did not complete the repairs in a reasonable time or keep the resident informed. At the time of our investigation, work remained outstanding. Record keeping was also poor.

How the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint

6. The landlord did not follow the timescales in its complaints policy, which caused inconvenience for the resident. It did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay.

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.

Our investigation

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.

What we have not investigated

8. The resident told us she wanted compensation for having to pay a higher interest rate. Although we can consider whether the landlord acted reasonably, in this case we cannot assess whether the landlord’s actions caused financial loss. These are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to prove legal liability or whether the landlord was responsible. However, we will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.

What we have investigated

9. The lease agreement and leaseholder handbook confirm the landlord will keep the structure of the property in good repair.
10. In an email to the landlord on 5 December 2023, the resident said she had reported damp and subsidence on 21 February 2023. When she did not receive a response, she said she emailed again on 5 March 2023 but did not receive a response. We have not seen evidence of the resident’s report in February 2023 or follow–up email. Because of this, we cannot comment on whether the landlord responded reasonably at this time.
11. On 25 September 2023 the resident said she had raised concerns about subsidence and damp before, but the landlord did not respond. She said there were cracks in the walls of her home, which a mortgage lender said subsidence could have caused. The resident complained about the landlord’s lack of response on 28 September 2023.
12. In its stage 1 complaint response on 14 November 2023, the landlord said it had made an appointment for 28 November 2023 to inspect the cracks. It said it would arrange any work needed after this. Although the resident said she first reported damp and subsidence in February 2023, we are unable to confirm this because of a lack of evidence. However, it is clear the resident contacted the landlord on 25 September 2023.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to non-urgent reports within 7 working days and routine repairs within 28 working days. In this case, our view is that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to do an inspection within 7 working days of 25 September 2023. As there was a report of damp, the landlord might have considered whether it should respond sooner than this. As it took the landlord over 2 months to do an inspection, we have found it did not follow its repairs policy.
14. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 November 2023. She said an appointment took place on 17 October 2023, when the landlord told her there was evidence of subsidence, and a structural engineer needed to assess the cause. She said after this the landlord made an appointment for 28 November 2023, but instead of sending a structural engineer, it sent a landscaper. She said the landscaper took photos, which the landlord had done already on 17 October 2023, but could not assess the problem.
15. In its final response on 5 January 2024, the landlord said it had raised work following the recommendations in the structural inspection.
16. We have not seen records of the outcomes of the appointments on 17 October or 28 November 2023. Because of this, we cannot comment on what the landlord agreed at these appointments. It is also unclear what structural survey the landlord referred to in its final response, as the resident said it had not done a structural survey.
17. Following the final response, the resident chased the landlord for an update on 19 and 31 January 2024. She wanted to know when a structural engineer would attend. She said she was concerned about the adverse effects of the damp on her health.
18. On 23 February 2024 the resident chased the landlord again for an update. The landlord raised a request for a structural survey the same day, which was 7 weeks after it sent its final response and 5 months after the resident’s report in September 2023.
19. It is unclear why the landlord needed to arrange a structural survey, as it said in its final response it had raised work following the recommendations in a structural survey. Because of the lack of an earlier record of a structural survey and the landlord raising a request in February 2024, it is our view that the landlord had not done a structural survey up to this point. Because of this, we have found there was a lack of urgency by the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns. We have also found there was poor record keeping as the landlord did not have a clear understanding of what actions it had taken and what it needed to do.
20. A structural survey took place on 4 April 2024, which was over 6 months after the resident’s report in September 2023. This found cracks caused by ground movement. It said leaks from drains or tree roots may have caused the cracks. It recommended a CCTV survey of drains, a borehole to check for tree roots, and a temporary covering on the wall to reduce damp. A drain survey took place on 25 June 2025. This found faults that could cause leaks. It recommended a full survey of drains around the property.
21. The landlord’s records show a further drain survey took place in September 2024 and surveys of soil and trees in November 2024. On 25 November 2024 the landlord told the resident it was working to resolve the outstanding issues. An internal email the same day said it had raised drain repairs following the CCTV survey. It said it was waiting for the soil report, which would confirm whether there was subsidence. It said once it received the report, it could decide whether to do repairs to the property. In October 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman that she was still waiting for the landlord to do repairs.
22. Overall, we have found there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it dealt with reports of subsidence and related damage. This is because there were significant delays in arranging inspections, poor record keeping, and a failure to do repairs in a reasonable time. Because of the lack of clarity in the records, we have measured from 25 September 2023 as the date of the first report. It took the landlord 2 months to arrange an inspection following this. The outcome of the inspection is unclear. In its final response in January 2024 the landlord said it had raised repairs following a structural survey, but we have seen no evidence of a structural survey up to that point.
23. The landlord then arranged a structural survey for April 2024, which was over 6 months after the original report. This recommended a drain survey, which did not happen until June 2024. A further drain survey took place in September 2024 and soil testing in November 2024. By this point, it is unclear whether the landlord had done any recommended repairs.
24. In October 2025, over 2 years after the report in September 2023, the resident told us the landlord had not fixed the subsidence. She said there was no sense of urgency from the landlord. We agree there has been a lack of urgency by the landlord. Since September 2023 the resident has had structural cracks and damp in her home, which caused damage. She has been unable to remortgage her property, which has caused distress, inconvenience, and costs.
25. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance the landlord must pay the resident £600 compensation as follows:
    1. £100 for the time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates.
    2. £100 for poor record keeping and communication failures.
    3. £200 for delays in carrying out repairs.
    4. £200 for the distress caused.

26. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says complainants should receive a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
27. The resident complained about the landlord’s response to her report of damp and subsidence on 28 September 2023. The landlord sent a response on 14 November 2023, which was 34 working days later. This was a failure by the landlord to follow its complaints policy.
28. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 November 2023, and the landlord sent its final response on 5 January 2024. This was 24 working days later, and slightly outside the timescale in its complaints policy.
29. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in responding.
30. Overall, we have found there was service failure by the landlord because it did not respond in line with its policy timescales or apologise for the delays. Because of this, the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused.