London Borough of Lambeth (202440462)

Decision
Case ID	202440462
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lambeth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	8 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a flat on the fifth floor of a block with her children, one of whom is very young. The resident and 2 of her children are vulnerable and have health conditions. When she moved into the property it was a new build within a defects period. She complained to the landlord about various repairs, the suitability of the property, and its handling of other matters. She also made a later complaint about its handling of electrical repairs in her kitchen.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the balcony doors, windows, lift, and electrics in the kitchen.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and thefts.
3. The death of a neighbour.
4. Rent arrears.
5. The suitability of the property.
6. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony doors, windows, lift, and electrics in the kitchen.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and thefts.
2. Rent arrears.
3. The complaint.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the death of a neighbour.
The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the suitability of the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

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

Summary of reasons

There was severe maladministration as the landlord unreasonably delayed in repairing the balcony doors. It failed and continues to fail to repair the windows to make them safe. It delayed in repairing the electrics in the kitchen, and its approach to compensation for this and issues regarding the lift was not reasonable.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB as it has not evidenced that it has taken any action or followed its policy, and the problem remains ongoing.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of rent arrears as it has not evidenced it kept in contact with the resident. It has not explained why it took so long to resolve the error and has not considered the impact this had on her.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling as it did not follow its policy and has not provided evidence of acknowledgment or complaint documents.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the death of a neighbour as its actions were reasonable.
The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the suitability of the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because it related to the actions of the landlord as a local housing authority (council) and not as a landlord.

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 the chief executive. 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 13 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,900 made up as follows: £1,500 for the substantial distress, worry, inconvenience, time and trouble caused for the resident over a number of years by its severe maladministration. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling reports of ASB. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling her rent arrears. £100 for the additional time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 13 January 2026
3	Completing the works The landlord must fit window locks or window restrictors to all windows within the property promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed.	No later than 13 January 2026
4	Take specific action order The landlord must provide a written update to the resident on the actions it has taken, and continues to take, to address the ASB taking place in the block. It is also to provide an update on when it will repair the communal door and intercom system. The landlord must provide documentary evidence it has provided this update by the due date.	No later than 13 January 2026
5	Case review order The landlord must carry out a case review and write a report. The review must include but is not limited to: An explanation for its knowledge and information management (record keeping) failings and how it will improve this. Why it failed to act upon the potential falling hazard reported by the resident, and why it did not take household vulnerabilities into account. Why its communication had been poor and not recorded, or its records have not been disclosed to us. The landlord must provide a copy of its review report to us and its board by the due date.	No later than 10 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
On or around 20 October 2024	The resident made a stage 1 complaint (the first complaint) about: Repairs to her balcony door had taken 3 years to complete after she first reported the safety hazard for her children. Her windows could be opened by her children and were not safe. ASB in the communal areas caused by youths and parcels having been stolen. Not having received an apology or compensation for the time the lift was broken. The landlord’s slow response when a neighbour died and the impact this had on her mental health. Having £23,000 worth of arrears added to her rent account when she was in receipt of benefits to pay her rent. Having raised complaints previously but the landlord not responding.
27 December 2024	The landlord attended a repair for a fault with the electrics in the resident’s kitchen. It said it needed a follow-on appointment.
3 January 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the first complaint (it has not provided a copy of its stage 1 response to us) in which it: Directly quoted from its stage 1 response as its response to each complaint element. Apologised for delays in repairing the balcony doors, which it said was due to a 2-year delay in the developer accepting responsibility. Said it would arrange to fit window restrictors. Accepted there was an ASB issue on the estate, and that youths had damaged communal doors. It said it was working with the police. It also advised residents to tell couriers not to leave parcels in communal areas and that there were facilities for parcel deliveries. Confirmed a neighbour had died, and it had followed its policies following this. Said Housing Benefit had been deducted from her rent account due to a Housing Benefit system error in April 2024. It believed this had been resolved by September 2024. Confirmed the council has granted her a priority banding, and level access status, to be able to bid on a suitable properties to move to. Did not uphold the complaint.
19 February 2025	The resident made a stage 1 complaint (the second complaint) about the landlord’s delay in repairing the electrics in her kitchen.
24 February 2025	The landlord repaired the electrical fault in the kitchen.
25 February 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response (to the second complaint). It apologised for the delay in completing the repair and said it partially upheld the complaint.
25 February 2025	The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord’s communication had been inconsistent. The fault had meant she had not been able to cook or wash clothes and had affected her financially. She asked for the landlord to offer reimbursement and/or compensation.
4 April 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response (to the second complaint) in which it upheld the complaint. It apologised for its communication failings and offered a £100 “goodwill gesture” for the distress and inconvenience caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s final responses. She said the landlord has not compensated her for the inconvenience, and distress, caused by the various repairs needed and the landlord’s delays. She also said she experienced a mental health episode, and her mental health has suffered due to its delays when a neighbour died and its handling of arrears on her rent account. She said the property is not suitable and she is still concerned about the safety of the windows and balcony doors for her young child being on the fifth floor.

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 repairs to the balcony doors, windows, lift, and electrics in the kitchen.
Finding	Severe maladministration

Under the tenancy agreement the landlord will maintain and repair the structure of the building, including windows and external doors. It is also responsible for the repair of installations for the supply of electricity and to keep lifts in working order. The landlord confirms its repairing obligations within its repairs policy, which also explains its repairs response times. It says it will attend and repair emergency repairs within 2 to 24 hours. It will complete routine repairs within 3 to 28 working days, based on the repair type. It will complete planned repairs within 90 working days.

Balcony doors

The resident reported that her balcony doors needed to be repaired on 14 September 2021, around 2 weeks after she moved into the property. There is evidence of her continuing to raise the issue with the landlord and attempting to make complaints. The landlord has not provided evidence on whether it recorded or responded to these complaints which is a record keeping failing. It has also failed to provide a record for its communications with the resident about the doors or any repairs records. On or around 28 June 2023 the resident said the landlord inspected the property but did not inspect the doors. The landlord repaired the doors around 3 years after they were first reported.
Within its stage 1 response, repeated at stage 2, to the first complaint the landlord accepted “balcony doors throughout the scheme were defective for a number of years”. It blamed the delay on the developers, who it said took 2 years to accept liability. The response suggests that the block was in a defects period, being a new build. The landlord has not provided a copy of its defects policy or agreement. It also has not provided any evidence of its investigation into the doors or of it corresponding with the developers, which is a further record keeping failing. Regardless, the landlord was ultimately responsible for repairs to external doors under the tenancy agreement. It failed to complete repairs within its policy timeframe or any notion of a reasonable time.
This substantial failing was made worse as the landlord had knowledge of the potential safety hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Falling between levels, including from a balcony, is a hazard under the HHSRS. Landlords have an obligation to remove or reduce hazards. The resident had explained that the balcony doors did not have a locking mechanism and so could be easily opened. She lives on the fifth floor, has children, and one has a condition meaning he tried to escape. The lack of locking mechanism caused the resident significant worry and distress for an extended period of time.

Windows

The resident has told us that her windows have not locked since she moved in. There is evidence she reported this to the landlord from 6 July 2022, on 22 November 2022, 29 March 2023 and 28 June 2023 before raising it in her stage 1 complaint (the first complaint). There is no evidence the landlord raised a repair, which is a failing. There is no evidence the landlord raised the issue as a defect with the developers, if it considered it a defect, which is a further failing. She had clearly explained that she had a baby, and then a young child, and the hazard of falling from a window which could be easily opened by her children. The landlord took no action to remove or reduce the hazard, which is a significant failing.
On an unknown date the resident says the landlord inspected and said the windows were not suitable. She raised a complaint on 11 September 2024 about its lack of action following this inspection. There is no evidence the landlord raised or responded to this. Within its stage 1 response to the first complaint (repeated at stage 2) it said it would arrange to fit window restrictors. There is no evidence it did so, and the resident has told us that the landlord took no action. She said her windows are still unsafe and caused her anxiety, worry and distress, as she must always watch her youngest child so that he does not open a window.

Lift

At the end of December 2022 a sewage leak in the basement of the block caused the lift to stop working. The resident reported this to the landlord and chased it. The landlord temporarily moved her to alternative accommodation from around 28 December 2022 until around the end of January 2023. During this period she stayed in 2 different hotels. Although the landlord has not provided a copy of its temporary moves policy, it was reasonable for it to offer temporary accommodation during this time. While the type of accommodation (without cooking facilities) and location may not have been ideal, we recognise the landlord had arranged it at short notice.
Following emails between the landlord and the resident, it agreed to reimburse her for some of her expenses. The resident told us the amount was £1,000. However, it delayed until after 29 March 2023 to pay this, which was an unreasonable delay. The resident has also told us that the landlord did not offer any compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused. The landlord failed to respond to this complaint element within its responses to the first complaint.

Electrics in the kitchen

On 25 December 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that she had no electricity in her kitchen, meaning she could not use her oven or washing machine. In an email on 27 December 2024 the landlord said it had attended that day and needed a follow-on appointment to replace a “4 way grid plate”. The landlord followed its repairs policy, and it was positive that it first attended within its emergency repair timeframe. However, it has failed to provide any repairs records to us.
While the landlord needed to order a part, there appears to have been a delay when its contractor requested approval, and it had closed and had to re-open the repair. It completed the repair on 24 February 2024, after 2 months. This was not in line with its repairs policy timeframe for a routine repair and was a failing. The resident had been left without a way to cook or wash clothes for this period, with children including a baby.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord accepted that it had delayed and apologised but did not offer any compensation. It did not acknowledge the additional expense not being able to cook had had on the resident and this led her to escalate her complaint. At stage 2 it again appropriately apologised. It offered £100 and was abundantly clear that this was a “goodwill” payment. This was inappropriate, as the landlord had at least in part caused the delay, and so this should have been compensation.

Conclusion

There were multiple and significant failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs. It delayed unreasonably to complete repairs to the balcony doors and delayed in repairing the kitchen electrics. It has failed to resolve the windows hazard. Overall, there was a lack of urgency or appreciation of the effects the various repairs were having on the resident, made worse by her and her children’s vulnerabilities. Cumulatively there was severe maladministration, which caused substantial distress, worry, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident over a number of years. To reflect the impact, an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,500 compensation to the resident, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB and thefts.
Finding	Maladministration

Under its ASB policy the landlord will investigate reports of ASB. It will work with the police where criminal behaviour occurs. It says that if this is the case it may be more appropriate for the police to take the lead investigating reported crimes. It says where possible it will support the police by providing evidence.
Within the first complaint the resident raised that youths were smoking drugs in the communal areas, running about the block, and stealing parcels. Despite us having asked the landlord multiple times to provide evidence of its handling of this ASB, it has failed to provide any records to us. We therefore cannot say what, if any, action it has taken. We do not know whether it has followed its policy or whether it is working with the police. Its lack of records is a significant record keeping failing and does not show its processes are working effectively. The landlord said in its stage 1 response, repeated at stage 2, that it was working with the police.
The resident has told us that at the date of this report the ASB is ongoing. She said it is not clear whether the youths are residents or outside third parties. The communal door is broken and so anyone can push it to enter. She said the landlord has sent ASB letters to residents but has not taken any action and the problem is ongoing.
In the absence of any evidence that the landlord has followed its ASB policy, and with the problem ongoing, there was maladministration. This has caused the resident to be fearful of the communal areas especially as she has young children. It has also caused distress and inconvenience. To reflect the impact, an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation to her.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the death of a neighbour.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident suspected that her elderly neighbour had died, after a smell was coming from his flat. She contacted the landlord, and it arranged for the appropriate people to attend. The neighbour had died, and it removed the body the same day. While the landlord has not provided a policy on what it will do when one of its residents dies, its initial actions were prompt and reasonable.
Within the first complaint the resident raised that the landlord had delayed for weeks before it cleaned the neighbour’s flat. She said the smell was present, and this was particularly distressing as there had been a death in her family recently. Within its response the landlord said it had followed its policies. Despite having been asked as part of our evidence request, the landlord has not provided its policy or any evidence on this complaint element.
While the situation was understandably distressing for the resident, the landlord acted reasonably. It attended promptly to the reported death. While it may have taken some time to clean the neighbour’s flat, it did do so and there may have been legal reasons for the delay. There was no maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of rent arrears.
Finding	Maladministration

Things we cannot consider

Within her complaint to the landlord, and to us, the resident said that the landlord’s handling of her rent arrears caused her to have a mental health “break down”. She has provided medical evidence about her mental health and vulnerability. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused to her mental or physical health. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have considered

Under the tenancy agreement the resident agrees to pay rent to the landlord. To assist her with this she applied for and was in receipt of housing benefit, which was administered by the council. In the first complaint the resident said she had been charged £23,000 despite being in receipt of housing benefit. Within its responses the landlord said a system error had caused a housing benefit deduction of £23,728.73 to be placed on her rent account. It said this had happened on 24 April 2024, but it had resolved it by September 2024, and this is not disputed by the resident.
The landlord has provided a copy of the resident’s rent statement to us, but this only goes up to March 2024. It has failed to provide evidence of the deduction or having resolved it. It has also failed to provide any evidence of its communication with the resident during this time. The resident said it sent her a letter at some point, but it did not call or visit her to discuss the issue. It also failed to confirm whether it or the council had caused the error or explain within its complaint response why it had taken over 4 months to resolve.
It is understandable that having a rent account balance showing as over £23,000 in arrears would cause a significant amount of distress and worry for the resident. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it acknowledged this, communicated with her or reassured her that she would not lose her home. It would have been reasonable to have proactively done this, regardless of whether the initial error was its or the council’s. There was maladministration. To reflect the distress and inconvenience caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £200 compensation to her.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the suitability of the property.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord. In this situation, the council was not acting in this capacity because it was acting as a local housing authority in the provision of housing and management of a housing lettings scheme. As such, we have no power to investigate the resident’s complaint about the suitability of the property or the landlord’s response to this. The resident may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
The council has awarded the resident band B priority to bid on alternative properties when advertised through the council’s lettings scheme.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has a complaints policy which is compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, from the date of acknowledgment. The policy also includes provisions for requesting extensions of time.
Under its policy the landlord will record complaints on its system, with accompanying notes and documents. It says “this will be used should the [resident] request a further review by the relevant Ombudsman”. The landlord has failed to provide to us a copy of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, its stage 1 response, or the resident’s escalation request, for the first complaint. This does not show that it has followed its policy to retain these documents and that its complaints process may not be operating effectively.
The landlord said the resident made her stage 1 complaint on 20 October 2024. It has failed to provide evidence that it acknowledged this within its policy timeframe or at all. We do not know the date it provided its stage 1 response. The landlord said the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 20 November 2024 but again has not provided any evidence it acknowledged it. If this is correct, then it provided its stage 2 response after 29 working days, which was not in line with its policy or the Code. It did not recognise, acknowledge, or offer any remedy for its delay within its response which was a further failing. Its stage 2 response was also a verbatim, or word for word, quote from its stage 1 response which was not appropriate and did not demonstrate it had investigated the complaint at stage 2.
There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the second complaint at stage 1 or the resident’s escalation request, which were failings. It provided its stage 1 response within its policy timeframe. Positively it acknowledged a failing and apologised but failed to offer a remedy which directly led to the stage 2 complaint. The landlord provided its stage 2 response after 28 working days, which was not in line with its policy or the Code. It again failed to recognise, acknowledge, or offer any remedy for its delay within its response.
Overall, there was maladministration. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy, did not retain or provide evidence and could not show it acknowledged either complaint or escalation request. Both its stage 2 responses were delayed, and it failed to recognise this. To reflect the additional time and trouble caused an order has been made that it pay £100 compensation to the resident.

Learning

There is evidence that the landlord has not followed its policies or that it had approached its repairing and other obligations with a lack of urgency or appreciation of the effects on the resident. It should review its approach especially when the resident and household are vulnerable or contain disabilities. It should also consider our learning from severe maladministration report on window related complaints available on our website.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s knowledge and information management has been extremely poor. As highlighted above, it has failed to provide evidence, policies, and complaint documents. It had been asked on several occasions to do so but continued to fail. It should consider the recommendations within our spotlight report on knowledge and information management available on our website.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident has been poor. It has also failed to provide full communication records to us.