London Borough of Lambeth (202419540)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419540

London Borough of Lambeth

28 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the property condition when he moved in.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 29 April 2024. The property is a 1-bed flat in converted house.
On 1 May 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the condition of the property. Within the complaint, the resident made requests for improvements and raised concerns about the condition of the following:
1. The type of heating system.
2. The condition of the windows.
3. Decoration in the living room.
4. A TV aerial not working.
5. Old and painted over air vents.
6. The condition of skirting boards.
7. Soundproofing.
8. The condition of an exterior gate and fences.
9. The condition of the front door.
Following the complaint, the resident made several service requests about other repairs at the property.
On 21 June 2024, the landlord provided a stage 1 response in which it upheld the complaint. The landlord said that it would not change the heating system (beyond considering a heat interface unit) or provide soundproofing. The landlord said a meeting between the resident and the voids manager would consider the other repair issues referenced in the complaint.
On 24 June 2024, the resident requested a complaint escalation and added additional repairs to the complaint. These were a request for the removal of a wall in the kitchen and for repairs to a garage at the end of the property.
The resident and voids manager communicated throughout July 2024 and August 2024 regarding different works at the property. The landlord carried out drainage works and a bath repair during this time.
On 16 August 2024, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. The landlord reiterated its position regarding improvement works and provided updates on other outstanding works.
The resident continued to make requests for improvements following the complaint and the landlord maintained that it would not meet these. It later carried out garden and fencing works but has not replaced the windows and doors as the resident disputed the replacements being like-for-like.

Assessment and findings

Within the resident’s initial complaint, he raised several specific concerns about the condition of the property and requested improvements. For clarity, our report addresses these separately below.

Repairs

Following the resident’s May 2024 complaint, the landlord raised several works orders relating to the repairs listed. It recorded several of these works as completed over the next few weeks. These included:
1. TV aerial (completed 20 May 2024).
2. Vents (21 May 2024).
3. Skirting boards (13 June 2024).
Given the nature of those works, the landlord’s repair policy would categorise them as routine repairs, with a timeframe of 28 working days. Although the landlord recorded the skirting board repairs as completed outside of this timeframe, it had attended on 15 May 2024 but was unable to access the property. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord met its obligations for each of these works.
Despite raising works orders and completing some of the requested works, others – such as the living room decoration – were not. Within his May 2024 complaint, the resident provided a photograph of the living room which clearly showed an undecorated patch of the wall. Based on this photograph, the landlord should have arranged decoration works within the 28 working day timeframe set out in its repair policy. The landlord did not complete these decoration works until 4 September 2024. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it attended significantly outside the timeframe set out in its policy.
The landlord agreed a site visit between the resident and its Voids Manager for 20 June 2024 to discuss any other repair concerns. This approach was reasonable given the range of works requested by the resident.
Prior to the meeting on 20 June 2024, the landlord closed a works order relating to fencing at the property. It noted that photographs of the fences looked “all good” and closed the works order on this basis. However, a previous note from an inspection found “the whole entire fence is in a very very bad condition and its not safe for the school kids”. A separate note said that the landlord received a call on behalf of the nursery next door, expressing concerns about the safety of the fencing.
Given the two notes on the works order, the landlord’s decision to close it without further investigation was inappropriate. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord. It delayed works to a fence which posed a potential health and safety risk. Based on these notes, the landlord should have done a risk assessment to ensure the safety of the fence while awaiting the full repair.
Following the meeting on 20 June 2024, the landlord agreed to the fencing works. It recorded these works as complete on 7 October 2024, over 5 months after the resident reported the problem and it noted their condition as “very bad”. During this period, the landlord cancelled the works order due to an upcoming change of its main contractor at the end of July 2024. Instead of scheduling to raise the works again after this happened, the landlord placed the onus on the resident to chase the works later on. This was an unreasonable approach as the landlord should have pro-actively managed the works.
Had the landlord acted on the works order from 1 May 2024 for the fencing and met the timeframe of 90 days from its repair policy, it should have completed the works prior to the change of contractor. However, failings in the landlord’s management of these works added unnecessary delays. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord.
The resident raised concerns about the quality of the windows in his initial May 2024 complaint. He provided pictures showing rotten frames, cracked glass, issues with the seal of the windows and problems with the sash mechanism. These photographs showed signs of a need for refurbishment works.
The landlord attended the property on 10 May 2024 and inspected the windows. Following this visit, it agreed to replace them. It cancelled the works on 20 June 2024 due to the upcoming change of contractor at the end of July 2024. The notes said the landlord had to cancel the works order as the contractor could not provide assurance that it would complete the works beforehand.
It is understandable that a change of contractor may impact the landlord’s delivery of repairs. However, it failed to explain this within its complaint response. As the landlord cancelled the order the day before, it should have referred to this in its response. The resident chased an update on this order on 8 July 2024 – this indicates he was given unclear information about the cancellation. This was another service failing on the part of the landlord.
After the initial complaint, there was a lack of clarity about progress of the window works. The landlord’s records do not demonstrate that it had adequate oversight of these works. The resident and the voids manager, who was dealing with the repairs, hold differing views on where the repair progressed to throughout the complaint process.
The landlord has yet to replace the windows and doors at the property. Landlord records show this is due to a dispute over the replacements being ‘like-for-like’. The landlord explained that due to the property being a listed building, it would only replace the windows and doors ‘like-for-like’. There is a requirement on the landlord to maintain the windows in line with the listed building status. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord only offered the ’like-for-like’ replacement.
The resident raised concerns around the condition of garden paving within his initial May 2024 complaint. Following the site visit in June 2024, the landlord agreed to repair the paving. The change of contractor delayed this work and when the landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint, it proposed that it remove the paving and replace it with turf.
Although the landlord explained that this was to ensure it met the lettable standard of being safe, it did not communicate a reason for its decision. The landlord is under no obligation to provide paving but it would be reasonable to explain its decision, given the resident’s request to keep it.
It is evident that the landlord removed the paving and made ready for turfing in February 2025. The landlord has shown that it completed the works to a good standard. However, there was a significant delay which was another service failing on the part of the landlord.
During the complaint period, the resident raised numerous other repairs. These did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint, and this report does not therefore consider them individually. The overall handling of the repairs by the landlord is laid out below.

Improvements

A heating engineer visited the property on 30 April 2024 and recommended the landlord upgrade the radiators and valves. The works order notes said that the engineer advised the resident that they could not improve the water pressure due to the type of heating system. Following this visit, the resident requested that the landlord change the system from communal heating to a combination boiler.
The landlord carried out a further survey of the heating system in May 2024. This recommended that the landlord installed a heat interface unit (HIU) and replace the radiators, valves and pipework. Given the resident’s concerns about the heating, the landlord’s actions were appropriate.
The resident confirmed that he would prefer the installation of a combination boiler rather than continuing to use the communal heating system. The landlord responded to these requests and said that it would not change the heating system and provided a reasonable explanation behind that decision.
When challenged by the resident, the landlord sought a further opinion. This agreed that that the current system, along with the proposed improvements, would be suitable. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord acted appropriately in managing this request and the basis of its decision was reasonable.
The resident also requested the installation of soundproofing within his initial complaint. Through the stage 1 response, the landlord said that it would not provide soundproofing as this kind of work is an improvement rather than a repair.
The landlord’s repair policy does not include any requirement for it to install soundproofing in a property. As there is no obligation on the landlord to carry out such work, it was reasonable for it to refuse this request. It was reasonable for it to instead offer to visit the neighbouring property to establish whether there was any way the noise could be reduced at source.
Through his stage 2 complaint escalation, the resident requested that the landlord remove a kitchen wall. The landlord’s records show that the resident discussed this with the Voids Manager on several occasions. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord said that it would not remove the kitchen wall as this kind of work is an improvement rather than a repair.
Following this response, the resident made further requests and eventually asked if he could complete the works himself. The landlord said he would need to make a formal request and directed him to the relevant application form. The landlord’s response was reasonable given that it was not obliged to change the kitchen layout.
The landlord also refused to carry out improvement works to a garage located next to the resident’s property. It said that as the garage did not belong to did not belong to the resident, it would not make the requested improvements. This was a reasonable approach as it was not part of the resident’s tenancy agreement for the landlord to improve the garage condition as he requested. However, given the resident’s reports of debris falling from the building, as the landlord was responsible for maintenance, it should have carried out an inspection to ensure the structure was safe. There is no evidence that it did so. This was a service failing on the part of the landlord.

Complaint management

The landlord’s complaint policy says that it should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord failed to meet either of these timeframes. The stage 1 response took 35 working days and the stage 2 response took 40 working days. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it delayed its complaint responses at both stages.

Summary

Some of the repairs raised by the resident – including to the garden, fencing and windows – are items that should be in good condition on a resident moving into a property in line with the landlord’s lettable standard. Despite requests from this Service, the landlord has not provided a copy of a void survey to verify the condition of these prior to the resident moving in.
However, given the photographs and reports we have seen, it is likely these did not meet the required standards. This is a significant service failing on the part of the landlord. This caused time and trouble to the resident as he had to raise these repairs once his tenancy began and some remained outstanding for several months.
When the resident raised his initial complaint about the property condition, the landlord should have attended and carried out a full inspection. Given the extent of the repairs raised, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not complete a full inspection and produce a report detailing its findings. This would have allowed it to produce a schedule of works for repairs it was responsible for and provide confirmation of those that were outside of its obligations.
Although the landlord did attend to repair requests, some took weeks or months to complete. This led to a significant amount of correspondence between the landlord and resident as they attempted to settle on, and arrange, a wide range of works.
Ultimately, the landlord failed to show that the property met its own lettable standard when the resident moved in. When the resident made it aware of such concerns, it failed to show an adequate level of urgency, planning or oversight of any required works. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the property condition when he moved in.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the property condition when he moved in.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report
Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £300 to the resident for the time and trouble caused by the failings in its handling of his complaint about the property condition when he moved in.
Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord should complete a full survey of the property to:
1. Ensure that it now meets its lettable standard.
2. Produce a full report detailing its findings to ensure that no further repairs are required to meet those standards.
3. Put in place a schedule of works if any repairs are required.
As part of this survey, the landlord should check the nearby garage to ensure there is no health and safety concern.
The landlord should provide a copy of the resulting report to the resident within 14 days of the inspection along with details of any timescales for works that it finds outstanding.