London Borough of Lambeth (202419305)

Back to Top

Decision

Case ID

202419305

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

London Borough of Lambeth

Landlord type

Local Authority

Occupancy

Leaseholder

Date

28 November 2025

Background

  1. The resident has lived in her 3-bedroom flat since 2001. The flat is in a block is on an estate. The block has communal doors and shares facilities, including the bin store.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about how the landlord dealt with the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about its engagement with residents.
    2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in communal areas.
  2. We have also considered how the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We have found there was:
    1. Reasonable redress by the landlord in how it dealt with concerns about its engagement with residents.
    2. Service failure by the landlord in how it dealt with reports of ASB.
    3. Maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint.
  2. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

  1. There were failings in the landlord’s communication about its engagement with residents, which it accepted and apologised for. It is our view that it provided reasonable explanations to the resident’s questions in its final response.
  2. We have seen no evidence that the landlord did an ASB risk assessment, created an action plan, or gave the resident updates on ASB. Its final response did not set out what it was doing to resolve security concerns with the communal doors. It is unclear from the information provided whether the landlord completed repairs to the doors.
  3. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint or escalation request. It also did not meet its response timescales at stage 1 and 2.

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.

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

1

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows:

  • £100 for inconvenience caused by the way it dealt with her concerns about ASB.
  • £150 for complaint handling failures.

The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

07 January 2026

2

Inspection order

The landlord must arrange an inspection of the communal doors. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes the inspection by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. Following this, it must give the resident and us a clear update on what repairs it will do, if they are needed. This must include clear timeframes on when it will complete any work.

No later than

07 January 2026

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations

We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to give her an update on its current engagement activities and its plans for engagement over the next 6 months.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

18 March 2024

The resident asked the landlord about changes to the way it engaged with residents on her estate. She also raised concerns about ASB in communal areas and security repairs to a communal door.

27 March 2024

The resident said she had asked the landlord many questions about its regeneration plans, but it had not told her what was happening. She said she was concerned about ASB and outstanding communal repairs. The landlord treated this as a complaint.

1 May 2024

In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had sent the resident a recent newsletter. It said it was engaging through the community hub and had asked residents to join a new engagement group. It said it was working with the police to resolve a problem with squatters. It said it partly upheld the complaint, as the resident had not received the newsletter, and there were outstanding repairs.

10 May 2024

In her escalation request, the resident said the newsletter had no information about why the drop-in sessions had ended. She said there was no longer a community hub based on the estate.

8 July 2024

In its final complaint response, the landlord said there had been a pause in the drop-in sessions because the housing officer was unwell. It said because of this, it had posted notices on how to get support. On ASB, it said it was working with the police. It did not give information about the outstanding repairs.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She told us she wanted clear, timely, and meaningful information from the landlord about its regeneration plans. She wanted it to repair the communal door and deal with the ASB. She said the conditions on the estate was causing her anxiety.

 

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.

Complaint

Concerns about how the landlord engaged with residents

Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. The Regulator of Social Housing’s (RSH) Transparency, Influence, and Accountability Standard sets out that landlords must communicate with affected tenants on progress, next steps, and outcomes when delivering landlord services.
  2. The landlord’s estate management policy says it is committed to engaging with residents by listening to their views, taking notice of issues raised, and recognising their contribution to neighbourhoods. It says it will provide general information in newsletters, emails, and on its website.
  3. It is not our role to assess whether the landlord met the RSH standard. Also, we cannot comment on how the landlord chose to use its resources to engage with residents. However, we can consider how it responded to the resident’s concerns.
  4. On 18 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord’s housing officer and said she had had no information since the officer stopped using the community hub 2 weeks ago. She asked if there would be a newsletter explaining what was happening on engagement. She also asked other questions about ASB and communal repairs.
  5. The officer responded on 19 March 2024 and confirmed they were dealing with queries. They did not answer the resident’s questions about engagement.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 March 2024 and said she had not received a response from the housing officer. We cannot say whether the resident received the original response but have seen evidence that the landlord sent one.
  7. The landlord replied the same day and re–sent the response. It said its estate renewal team was engaging with residents through email, telephone, and home visits. It said it had updated its website and issued newsletters, with the next edition due out in June or July 2024. It said the Tenant Participation and Advisory Service (TPAS) was supporting residents, and TPAS would arrange drop-in sessions ahead of the resident engagement group meetings. It said these meetings would start on 16 April 2024, and TPAS would deliver flyers to promote them. It also said it would update the noticeboards.
  8. The resident sent further emails on 27 March 2023 and said she had asked questions about regeneration plans, but the landlord had not told her what was happening. She also asked questions about roles and responsibilities, why the landlord had left the community room, and if there was an analysis of the drop-in sessions. She said residents had not received the newsletter and noticeboards needed updating.
  9. The landlord decided to deal with the resident’s email as an expression of dissatisfaction and raised a complaint. In its stage 1 complaint response on 1 May 2023, the landlord said it had sent the resident a copy of a newsletter on 27 March 2024, and it had delivered it around the estate on 5 March 2023. It said it had a team working out of the community room, which was engaging with residents. It said leaflets had been delivered asking residents to join a new engagement group that would deliver the next phase of affordable homes. It said the group had met on 16 April 2023 and suggested the resident could raise concerns through the group. It said it partly upheld the complaint as the resident did not receive the newsletter.
  10. Before it sent its complaint response, the landlord sent the resident a copy of a newsletter. As we have not seen a copy, we cannot comment on whether it included sufficient or correct information. However, when the resident said she had not received a copy, it was reasonable for the landlord to send her one. Although we cannot assess the effectiveness of the engagement, it is our view that the landlord gave a reasonable explanation of its plans for resident engagement. However, its response did not deal with all the questions the residents raised, such as why the drop-in sessions had ended. It is our view that this was a communication failure.
  11. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 10 May 2023. She said the newsletter had no information about why the landlord stopped the drop-in sessions. She said the engagement team was no longer based on the estate. She referred to a cabinet report saying the landlord was looking for contractors to take over the construction programme. She wanted to know why she had been told the landlord had not decided on a way forward.
  12. In its final complaint response on 8 July 2024, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and the lack of timely communication. It said it would send out a newsletter “shortly”, and it had paused the drop-in sessions because the housing officer was off work with an injury. It said the drop-in sessions would start again later that month. It said because of the pause, it had posted notices on the estate giving information on where residents could get support. It said this helped it use its resources more effectively. It gave information about a cabinet decision in March 2024 that was about delivering affordable homes. It provided details of the names and roles of officers in the housing management team.
  13. Overall, it is our view that this was a reasonable response. We have seen there were some failings in the landlord’s communications. However, the landlord apologised for these, which was reasonable. It also provided a reasonable explanation of why the drop-in sessions had not taken place. It is not our role to comment on the decisions made by the landlord’s cabinet. However, we have seen that the landlord explained the decision the cabinet had made. For these reasons, we have found there was reasonable redress in how it dealt with the resident’s concerns about its engagement with residents.
  14. In November 2025 the resident told us that the landlord was not sending regular newsletters, not sharing information, and although there was a new engagement team, there was limited engagement. We have made a recommendation to address this.

Complaint

How the landlord dealt with reports of ASB

Finding

Service failure
  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will resolve instances of ASB as early as possible through timely and appropriate intervention. On criminal activity, it says it will contact the police and work with them.
  2. Although the resident said there had been ASB for years, we have not seen any reports before 18 March 2024, when the resident told the landlord that someone was squatting in the bin store. She said this was because the door was not secure. The landlord responded on 19 March 2024 and said it would raise repairs to secure the door.
  3. On 27 March 2024 the resident said she had safety concerns. She said the police had attended but nothing had changed. She referred to empty properties and neglect, which she said made the estate attractive to squatters and drug users. She said the landlord had promised it would send a letter to residents about ASB and questioned whether that happened. She said the outstanding repairs to communal doors meant non-residents could get into the building. The landlord dealt with this as a complaint.
  4. On 2 April 2024 the landlord contacted the police about squatters. The police responded the next day and said it would work with the landlord to remove them. It is our view that this was a reasonable response, as the landlord needed police support in this case.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response on 1 May 2024, the landlord accepted that empty homes had attracted squatters. It said it was prioritising work on these to bring them back into use and was working with the police to remove the squatters.
  6. When the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 10 May 2024, she included an email that she had sent to the landlord on 27 March 2024. This referred to squatters being a problem for several years, drug activity, and youths accessing communal areas because of the outstanding repairs to communal doors. She said she had not had a response to the email.
  7. In its final response on 6 July 2024, the landlord repeated that it was working with the police to resolve ASB on the estate. It said if evidence linked ASB to a resident, it would act against them. It did not set out what it would do about the outstanding repairs to security on the communal doors.
  8. As some allegations of ASB related to drug use, squatters, and criminal activity, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain it was working with the police. This is because the police have powers in these circumstances that the landlord does not have.
  9. However, it is our view that this response did not sufficiently address the resident’s concerns. In March 2024 she expressed concerns about safety. We have seen evidence that the landlord then contacted the police, which was reasonable. However, we have seen no evidence that it did a risk assessment, created an action plan, or gave the resident updates. We would expect the landlord to do this, even though the ASB was not directed at the resident. The landlord’s response also did not set out what it was doing to repair locks on the communal doors. The resident told us in November 2025 that she still had concerns about whether the communal doors were secure. It is unclear from the information provided by the landlord whether it completed the repairs after it raised them in March 2024.
  10. Because of these failings and/or missing information, we have found there was service failure by the landlord. The concerns about security caused the resident anxiety. It also caused inconvenience because she had to chase the landlord for updates. Because of this, the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation.

Complaint

How the landlord dealt with the complaint

Finding

Maladministration
  1. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as any expression of dissatisfaction. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. When the resident asked questions about engagement, ASB, and communal repairs on 27 March 2023, the landlord decided to raise a complaint as it considered the email was an expression of dissatisfaction. It is our view that this was reasonable and in line with its policy. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord told the resident it had raised a complaint until it sent its stage 1 complaint response on 1 May 2024.
  3. It took the landlord 25 working days to send its stage 1 response, which was outside the timescales in its policy. The resident made an escalation request on10 May 2024. We have seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the escalation request. It sent its final complaint response on 8 July 2024, which was 40 working days later.
  4. Overall, we have found there was maladministration in how the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint. Although it was reasonable to raise a complaint when there was an expression of dissatisfaction, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or escalation request. It also did not meet its timescales at stage 1 or 2. Because of this, the landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures.

Learning

Communication

  1. We have found there were failures in the landlord’s communication, as it sometimes did not respond to the questions the resident asked.

Knowledge and information management

  1. We have found there were lapses in the landlord’s record keeping as there was no record of work done on communal repairs.