London Borough of Lambeth (202420046)

Decision
Case ID	202420046
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lambeth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	24 October 2025

Background

1. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat, which is occupied by tenants of the resident (a leaseholder). The landlord is the freeholder of the building.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak and associated damp and mould in the property.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and associated damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Leak and associated damp and mould

4. The landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns or consider its responsibilities for resolving the issue. Despite evidence of ongoing problems, it did not investigate further or outline how it intended to address the cause of the leak, leaving the resident to resolve the matter independently. Poor record keeping also contributed to the landlord’s failures.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord delayed in responding to the complaint at both stages and did not escalate the complaint when the resident expressed ongoing dissatisfaction. It failed to complete a thorough investigation. It also did not offer any apology or redress for its complaint handling failures.

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	Apology order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 21 November 2025
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of a leak and associated damp and mould. £150 for the complaint handling failures identified. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 21 November 2025
3	Discretionary compensation order The landlord must contact the resident to obtain evidence of the costs incurred to rectify the cause of the leak and internal damage. Once received, the landlord should consider contributing towards these costs in addition to the compensation ordered above. The landlord must inform both us and the resident of its decision by the due date, providing a clear explanation of its decision-making process.	No later than 21 November 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 December 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. He said there were continuous issues with damp and ingress of water into the property. He expressed concerns of the impact of this on his tenant. He stated he felt the landlord was “seriously failing” in its obligations as the freeholder.
19 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint and acknowledged the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident. It confirmed that works had been completed to the communal pathways, which were suspected to be the source of the leak. It said the resident would need to manage internal repairs or make a claim via his insurers.
15 March 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he remained dissatisfied as the damp issues remained unresolved. He stated he had been unable to make a claim through the landlord’s insurance and requested reimbursement for the cost of repairs to fix the damage.
23 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said a surveyor had attended the property and confirmed there were no active leaks. It concluded that no further action was required.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate, stating that the landlord had failed to complete a lasting and effective repair to the damp issues. He said he had incurred significant costs as a result, and the landlord had not addressed this aspect of his complaint in its final response.
17 October 2025	During contact with us, the resident confirmed that the damp issues had been resolved by a contractor appointed by him. As an outcome, he said he would like to be reimbursed for the costs he incurred to rectify the cause of the leak and the internal damage.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and associated damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

6. The Scheme allows us to consider complaints from leaseholders and tenants who have a direct contractual relationship with a member landlord. As the tenants in this case are subtenants of the resident, we cannot assess the impact on them directly. The landlord’s obligations are to the leaseholder under the lease agreement. Therefore, our assessment will focus on how the landlord’s actions affected the resident, including any distress and inconvenience caused to him.
7. The resident said there had been severe damp issues at the property for over 5 years. In the interests of fairness, and considering the availability of evidence, this investigation will focus on events from December 2022 onwards, covering the 12-month period prior to the complaint being raised. This approach is in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
8. The lease requires the landlord to maintain all structural parts of the building, including any water pipes that do not exclusively serve the leaseholder’s property.
9. The landlord has not provided any contemporaneous repair records. When asked, it stated that there was no repairs history for the property, which points to poor record keeping practices. Instead, it has provided ‘cut and paste’ extracts of work orders advising the month they were raised and completed. We also have limited details of its contact history with the resident. This has hindered our ability to assess when issues were raised and what actions were taken to resolve them.
10. The landlord stated that it raised repairs for the communal pathway above the resident’s property in August 2023, suspecting it to be the source of the leak affecting the property. It provided a contractor’s work order dated 11 October 2023 and confirmed that the works were completed within that month. Due to the absence of clear and detailed records, we are unable to verify exactly when the repairs were initiated or completed. As a result, we cannot determine whether the landlord acted in accordance with the response times set out in its repairs policy.
11. In his complaint raised on 15 December 2023, the resident told the landlord that the leak was not resolved, which was causing damp and mould. According to the landlord, a repair order was initially raised in response, but later cancelled, as the issue required a roofing contractor. The landlord stated a separate order was raised for the contractor, but we have seen no evidence of this.
12. In its stage 1 response on 19 January 2024, the landlord referred to repairs completed in October 2023 but did not clarify its position regarding the repairs raised in December 2023. It also failed to provide the resident with a plan of action to address the ongoing issues, despite his request at the time of raising the complaint. This was unreasonable given the resident had reported the leak was causing damp and mould. The landlord should have treated the repairs with urgency. Instead, it left the resident with unresolved issues, contributing to his inconvenience.
13. Between 22 January 2024 and 24 February 2024, the resident corresponded with the landlord, explaining that the damp issues had worsened. He noted that a contractor had inspected the property on 14 February 2024 and submitted a report to the landlord requesting guidance on next steps, as damp in the bedroom remained unresolved. We have not seen the contractor’s report, indicating further record keeping issues. The resident again requested an action plan, but the landlord did not respond. This likely caused the resident some frustration and contributed to his decision to escalate the complaint. This also added to his time and effort in trying to resolve the issues.
14. In his escalation request on 15 March 2024, the resident informed the landlord that there was still significant damp affecting the walls and ceilings, despite being advised that the leak had been resolved. He also reported that water was now penetrating the floors. He stated the landlord’s insurer had denied his claim and requested reimbursement for the cost of repairs to the damage. 
15. As part of its stage 2 complaint investigation, the landlord appropriately invited the resident to submit any additional evidence he wished to be considered. The resident responded with photos which appeared to show signs of water ingress, damp and black spot mould within the property.
16. In its stage 2 response on 23 April 2024, the landlord stated that a surveyor had attended and found no leaks, identifying only minor condensation. However, no survey report was provided to us, so it is unclear how these findings were reached. Given the discrepancy between the surveyor’s findings and the resident’s evidence, and considering the seriousness of the reported issues, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out further investigation. It apparently did not do this, which was a failing. It also did not provide an action plan outlining how it intended to resolve the ongoing problems. This showed a lack of ownership and a failure to adequately consider how the leak was affecting the inside of the property. 
17. In its final response, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the costs he had incurred or his request for reimbursement, which was inappropriate. When referring the complaint to us, the resident also raised concerns about the adequacy of the landlord’s buildings insurance cover, as he had been unable to claim for damage caused by water ingress. However, assessing insurance coverage or the outcome of claims made to external insurers falls outside our remit, as insurers operate independently from landlords. We can only consider the actions of social landlords. Nevertheless, we would expect the landlord to respond to any concerns about insurance cover raised by the resident, providing timely explanations wherever possible.
18. The landlord did not offer any compensation as part of its complaint responses, despite upholding the resident’s stage 1 complaint. We consider a payment of £400 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures that adversely affected the resident, that the landlord has not acknowledged or put right.
19. After the complaints process ended on 23 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord stating he was “extremely surprised by [its final] response”. He explained that his own contractors, who were repairing internal damage, had identified a major defect caused by external water ingress – not minor condensation. The landlord did not reply, leaving the resident with unresolved issues which were causing internal damage to the property.
20. After we requested evidence from the landlord, internal correspondence on 9 June 2025 stated that the leaseholder should have provided an independent damp survey to confirm whether the damp and mould were caused by structural problems. The landlord said if the resident had done this, it would have carried out any necessary repairs. However, this advice was not given to the resident during the complaints process, when he raised concerns about damp, mould, and damage, which is unreasonable. As a result, an order has been made regarding this issue. 
21. During contact with us in October 2025, the resident confirmed that the damp issues had been resolved. He explained that, due to the landlord’s lack of action, he appointed a contractor who identified the source of the leak as a shared mains water pipe within the wall. Damp was also found to be penetrating from a neighbouring property, for which the resident states the landlord is also the freeholder. The resident’s contractors carried out the necessary repairs, and he is seeking reimbursement for the associated costs. While it is outside our remit to award compensation for damages (the resident may wish to pursue this through an insurance claim or the courts), an order has been made in relation to this matter.
22. In a recent determination (case reference 202321721), we identified issues with the landlord’s record keeping and repair handling. As part of that case, the landlord was ordered to conduct a review of its record keeping practices and repair procedures, and consider our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). Therefore, we have not made a further order regarding record keeping or repair procedures in this case, as it has already been addressed through the previous determination.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

23. The landlord operated a 3-stage complaints process at the time of the resident’s complaint. Its policy stated it would acknowledge complaints within 3 working days and respond within 15 working days of receipt of the complaint at stages 1 and 2.
24. The resident’s complaint progressed through the first 2 stages of the landlord’s complaints process, with the landlord confirming stage 2 was its final response. At stage 1, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint and took 22 working days to provide its response. At stage 2, it took 4 working days to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request and a further 22 working days to provide its response. Both exceeded the timescales set out in its policy.
25. On 24 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord stating the issues remained unresolved and he was considering referring his complaint to the Ombudsman. At this point, the landlord should have interpreted this as an expression of dissatisfaction and escalated the complaint to stage 2, in line with its policy. However, it failed to respond at all, which was unreasonable. This caused the resident additional time and effort in pursuing the complaint.
26. The stage 2 complaint was the landlord’s final opportunity to review both the substantive issue and its complaint handling. However, it failed to conduct a thorough investigation, wrongly concluding no further action was required, even though there was clear evidence of ongoing problems. As a result, the landlord missed the opportunity to remedy the substantive issue and rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship, failing to use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
27. The landlord made no offer of compensation to the resident, despite upholding his complaint at stage 1, which was inappropriate. The landlord should have considered an award in line with its compensation policy. It also did not assess its own complaint handling, failing to apologise or offer any redress for the failures identified.
28. We consider a payment of £150 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident.

Learning

29. The landlord should assess its own complaint handling as part of a complaint investigation, ensuring appropriate redress is offered where any failings are identified.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord was unable to provide contemporaneous repair records, and there were other noticeable gaps in its documentation, including missing contractor and surveyor reports. This indicates poor record keeping. The landlord should ensure it has systems in place to accurately record all communication with residents, including when repairs are reported, and the outcomes of contractor and surveyor visits.

Communication

31. There was a lack of effective communication from the landlord, with the resident left to chase and seek answers regarding the repairs. This highlights the importance of maintaining regular, proactive communication and providing clear action plans to address reported issues.