London Borough of Lambeth (202501138)

Background

1. The property is a ground-floor flat. The resident lives in the property with a child under the age of 5.  She is unhappy that the landlord had failed to complete repairs to stop water ingress into her property despite her reporting this in March 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s :
   1. Reports of water ingress.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of water ingress.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress

4. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports. By the time of its stage 2 complaint response, 8 months after it had first logged the issue, it had failed to complete any works to resolve the causes of the water ingress.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

5. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It failed to acknowledge these delays or to provide the resident with appropriate compensation for these.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

6. The landlord’s repair policy has several timescales for dealing with repair reports. For urgent emergencies it says it will attend within 2 hours to make safe and 24 hours to complete the necessary repairs. For emergencies it will attend within 1 working day. For routine repairs it will attend within 3, 7 or 28 working days depending on the type of repair. For larger planned repairs it says it will aim to complete these within 90 working days.
7. The landlord’s damp policy says that it will provide a quick diagnosis of the causes of damp and mould. It says that it will complete an inspection and provide a diagnosis of the cause of damp within 28 days.
8. After the resident reported the water ingress, the landlord took some steps towards progressing the repairs. It conducted an inspection on 15 August 2024, erected scaffolding on 21 August 2024 and had a structural engineer perform a survey on 11 September 2024. Whilst these actions were reasonable, it is unclear from the evidence why it took the landlord such a significant amount of time to take these steps to begin resolving the issue after the resident’s initial report on 14 March 2024.
9. The landlord’s repair timescale says that it will complete planned repairs in 90 days. In this instance the landlord fell significantly short of these timescales and had taken no steps towards assessing or completing the repairs within 90 days of the resident’s first reports in March 2024. This represented a significant failing from the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports.
10. The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding this water ingress was extremely poor. It has provided no evidence of any communication with the resident between 14 March 2024 and its stage 1 complaint response on 20 August 2024. The resident contacted the landlord to chase updates on the repairs on 3, 9 and 24 May 2024 prior to raising her complaint. The landlord’s failure to communicate with the resident about the ongoing works and any delays it might have been experiencing again represented a significant failure in its handling of the matter.
11. The landlord has told us that its failure to perform the repairs in a reasonable timeframe was for several reasons. It said this was due to a change of the supervisor of the works, as well as confusion over the works. The confusion regarding the works stemmed from the fact that, during this period, the resident’s neighbour in the same building was reporting a roof leak. The landlord said that there was confusion caused between the separate orders between the two properties and what works it needed to complete to resolve each of these.
12. The landlord’s failure to properly record these jobs as separate and to issue the necessary work orders relating to each property represented a significant failure in its record-keeping procedures. This led to the landlord marking the jobs as complete on 15 November 2024 without performing any repairs to the resident’s property. The landlord’s failure to properly record the issues and its progress undoubtedly caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
13. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that, once external works had been completed, internal works could begin. It is unclear from its wording if this meant that it would take responsibility for the internal works. As the resident is a leaseholder it generally would not have a statutory obligation to perform the remedial internal works. It should however write to the resident confirming what actions it will take to assist her in completing these works. If it is not willing to perform these or compensate her directly for these works, it should explain what options are available to her and provide her with the details of its liability insurer, if appropriate, so she can make a claim for these works.
14. The resident repeatedly told the landlord that she had a young child in the property, as well as about the affects this was having on her mental health. The landlord has however failed to provide evidence to show it considered the risks that the ongoing water ingress posed to the household. The landlord’s failure to consider any vulnerabilities of the household represented a failing from the landlord in handling this issue. 
15. The landlord has told us that it completed works on 14 August 2025. This was 20 months after it had first raised a job for water ingress. However, the resident told us the water ingress was still ongoing. Given that, we have made an order for the landlord to carry out a new inspection of the property to determine if there is any ongoing water ingress and if so the cause of this.
16. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about water ingress amount to maladministration. It was aware of a young child in the property however had only erected scaffolding and performed an inspection in the 8 months between her reporting the issue and its stage 2 complaint response.
17. Given the landlord should have repaired the leak within 90 working days, there was about a 14-month delay in it doing so. This meant the resident was living in a property which became damp when it rained. We note that the resident reported living with mould also for the 6 months before the repair in August 2025.  The delay in completing the repair would have likely caused frustration, inconvenience and distress to the resident.  Financial compensation of £840 is appropriate which we have calculated as an average of £60 a month for the 14-month period of delay. This is in line with our remedies guidance which recommends figures in this region where there have been failings by the landlord that had a significant impact on the resident. 

18. The landlord’s complaint policy has 2 stages. At stage 1 of the complaint’s procedure, it says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a written stage 1 complaint response within 10 further working days. At stage 2, it says it will again acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide its complaint response within a further 10 working days.
19. The timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint policy are in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
20. The resident first raised her complaint on 24 May 2024, and the landlord provided its complaint response on 20 August 2024. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It took 61 working days to provide its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. This was significantly outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint policy and represented a failure to appropriately handle her complaint.
21. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 4 October 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response 32 working days later on 18 November 2024. This again fell outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint policy.
22. The landlord failed to provide the resident with any updates regarding the delays in its complaints process. This again represented a failing to act within the terms of its complaints policy and its failure to provide such updates undoubtedly increased the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
23. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint therefore represented maladministration. It failed at both stages of its complaint responses to provide her with responses in its timescales, whilst also failing to keep her updated about these delays. For the impact of these delays the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies which recommends figures in this range when there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but did not have a permanent impact.