We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London Borough of Lambeth (202328058)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328058

Lambeth Council

23 October 2024


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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy that began on 26 June 2017. The property is a 3-bed ground floor flat in a converted house.
  2. On 5 December 2022, the resident reported a leak, damp and mould at the property. Despite works orders being raised and the landlord attending, no significant repairs were completed.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 October 2023 and raised a complaint as those works remained outstanding. The landlord did not manage this as a complaint; it was instead recorded as an “early resolution”. The landlord raised new works orders in response to this complaint.
  4. The landlord did not carry out any repairs and the resident raised a further complaint through customer services on 3 November 2023. The landlord failed to provide a response to her complaint. 
  5. Following a request from this Service on 22 January 2024 for a complaint response, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 9 February 2024. It upheld the complaint and acknowledged that the leak and associated damp and mould issues had been ongoing for “a considerable length of time”. It said that the roof was not the cause of the leak but it continued to investigate other potential causes. The landlord said that once it had identified and repaired the cause of the leak, it would then contact her to arrange any internal repairs that were required. It said compensation was being considered and the resident would be “contacted further”.
  6. On 19 March 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She said that the landlord had incorrectly focused on the roof as the cause of the leak, rather than the guttering on the balcony above which she had directed it to. She expressed frustration at the lack of any timeframes for its actions.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 June 2024, acknowledging the delay in its response. The landlord apologised and said it had been in contact with the resident’s neighbour to organise access to the balcony above. It said that it would arrange internal repairs once it had addressed the leak. The landlord offered compensation of £100 in recognition of the complaint.  

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould

  1. Although the leak and the reports of damp and mould were linked, for clarity the report will address each of these individually.

Leak

  1. It is evident from its records that on 5 December 2022, the resident made the landlord aware that her “bedroom wall was fully damp and it’s leaking inside when raining.” The landlord recorded the works order to investigate the leak as a ‘routine 1’ repair. In line with its repair policy, the landlord should have carried out the repair within 1 to 3 working days.
  2. This Service has not had sight of any evidence of the landlord attending to either inspect or repair the reported leak within the required timeframe. A note referencing the leak was added to a separate works order on 30 December 2022. The note said an appointment was arranged for 24 January 2023 to “look at balcony”. This Service has not had sight of any record of this visit having gone ahead or of the landlord raising any follow-on works to repair the balcony or resolve the leak.
  3. The landlord’s contact logs from 10 October 2023 noted that it had raised the works order to investigate the cause of the leak incorrectly on 5 December 2022. The notes said that it should have raised the works order to a contractor, rather than its direct labour organisation (DLO). This would explain why the landlord failed to attend or carry out the inspection initially. However, it was also inappropriate that the landlord did not question or follow up on these incomplete jobs.
  4. Although the landlord raised the initial works order incorrectly, it was made aware of the leak again on 30 December 2022. However, despite references to the leak within the job notes, the landlord did not act on these as there is no evidence of it taking any further action. This demonstrates a lack of oversight or joined up working by the landlord. Had it considered those notes and reviewed the outstanding works for the property, it could have identified the incorrectly recorded works order and corrected it. These errors are a service failing on the part of the landlord, as rather than the leak being addressed within 3 working days, it remained outstanding 215 working days later.
  5. The resident provided a video of the leak dated 20 September 2023. This shows a significant crack in the ceiling. In the video, drops of water drip quickly across the length of the crack and land next to the bed. Given the severity of the leak in this video, it is understandable that the resident raised concerns around the damage and the health implications that the leak could have on her and her family. It is clear from the video that this would affect the resident’s enjoyment of her home.
  6. Following contact from the resident on 10 October 2023 to chase up the works, the landlord submitted a new works order to the contractor for investigation. Outside of the contact note which detailed the landlord raising this new works order, this Service has received no evidence of that works order.
  7. It is evident that the landlord failed to carry out those required works, despite receiving a complaint and raising a new works order on 10 October 2023. Given the previous delay and the severity of the leak, the landlord should have sought to manage this as a priority. However, in its complaint response dated 3 June 2024, the landlord acknowledged that it was yet to arrange access to the neighbouring property to carry out the required repairs. At the time of that response, the repair was 161 working days outside of the timeframe set out in its policy and 378 working days since it was first reported.
  8. Within the information provided by the landlord to the Ombudsman, there was no evidence of the leak having been repaired.  

Damp and Mould

  1. When the resident reported the leak on 5 December 2022, the landlord raised a further works order relating to damp and mould. The works order said a patch of the bedroom wall had ‘came out,’ there was mould under the wallpaper and plastering and decoration was required. The landlord recorded it as a ‘routine 2’ repair, which the repair policy says should be carried out within 28 days. This is despite its own damp and mould policy stating that the landlord should carry out the initial wash and treatment within 7 days.
  2. Although the works order logs show that it attended on 30 December 2022 to complete a mould wash, the landlord failed to complete the other works listed on that works order. The contact note dated 10 October 2023 acknowledged this, recording that the job had “been closed without works being carried out”.
  3. The landlord’s repair policy says that when it receives a report of damp, it will arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 days. It says that it should then “agree and write an action plan with you to resolve the damp, that will include timeframes”. This Service has not seen any evidence of any risk assessment, action plan or schedule of works put in place by the landlord to treat the damp and mould.
  4. It is clear that the landlord failed to meet the guidelines set out in its own damp and mould policy. Outside of carrying out a mould wash on 30 December 2022, there is no evidence of the landlord completing any other actions to address the damp and mould issue at the property. Contractor notes following a damp and mould related visit explain the importance of it acting to address the source of the problem before it could be treated successfully. However, it is clear this was not actioned and no further damp and mould related treatments or works took place prior to the complaint in October 2023.
  5. This Service did not receive any evidence of the landlord completing any further damp and mould works after the resident raised her complaint.

Summary

  1. Ultimately, the landlord failed to repair a significant leak in the resident’s property, and treat the damp and mould caused by that leak, for over 18 months. Even after identifying its failure to address those problems in the 10 months after the resident reported them, the landlord still failed to carry out the required repairs from October 2023 onwards.
  2. There are mentions of visits to the property within internal notes and emails. However, a lack of adequate record keeping around those visits prevents an accurate audit trail of what happened. Regardless of those visits that may have taken place, there were no works orders raised following them and the repairs remained outstanding throughout. Had the landlord recorded these visits and raised follow on works, it is possible that these issues could have been resolved much sooner.
  3. The landlord had provided details of how the resident could claim for personal belongings damaged by the leaks, damp and mould at stage one. However, given the other service failings, the landlord agreed that it should provide an additional compensation payment. The landlord offered £100 to address those failings. The Ombudsman recommends compensation in this range where there has been short term service failure with minimal impact. It is therefore the view of the Ombudsman that this offer was not proportionate in addressing the number of failings, extent of delays and likely impact on the resident’s living conditions as identified in this report.
  4. Having considered those failings and the significant delays identified in this report, the Ombudsman makes a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of leaks, damp and mould.
  5. Several months ago, the Ombudsman made findings of severe maladministration in 2 separate cases (202317574 and 202311129) for this landlord. We made learning orders under paragraph 54g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme for the landlord to complete a senior management review and consider whether its damp and mould processes are fit for purpose. We have therefore not repeated a similar order here.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. It is evident that when the resident first raised her complaint on 10 October 2023, the landlord recorded this as an “early resolution” complaint. This was not managed as a formal complaint, but new works orders were raised to address the reason for the complaint. However, it is evident that there was no oversight of those works as the landlord failed to carry out the repairs. The use of this preliminary complaint stage was not effective, and the resident was left no better off for having raised it. This is a service failing by the landlord.
  2. It is clear from internal emails that the landlord was aware of the resident’s desire to raise a formal complaint on 3 November 2023. The landlord’s complaint policy says that this should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response provided within 10 working days. No acknowledgement or response was provided to the resident within these timeframes. This is another service failing by the landlord, which likely left the resident feeling ignored.
  3. The landlord failed to provide any response to the complaint until after this Service made a request to it on 19 January 2024. The landlord said it would provide a response by 26 January 2024 but failed to do so until 9 February 2024, 10 working days after it said it would. This is a further service failing as it continued to fail to meet the timeframes it offered.
  4. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord upheld the complaint and acknowledged the delays in both the outstanding works and its complaint handling. However, it failed to demonstrate adequate understanding or investigation of her complaint. This is evident as it focused on the condition of the roof, rather than the balcony which the resident and previous contractors had highlighted as being the cause of the problem.
  5. The landlord proposed that it would continue to investigate the cause of the leak and carry out decorative works once it had. It provided no plan or detail as to the course of action it would take, and no timeframes were provided. It said it would consider a compensation payment given the delays but no offer was made, as it would be dependent on when the issues were resolved. Outside of the landlord acknowledging the delays, the resident was no better off following this response.
  6. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 19 March 2024. She expressed frustration that the landlord had not understood her complaint, especially as she had told it what it needed to do. Despite the stage 1 complaint response having been sent over a month prior, she said that nobody had contacted her since. This is another failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to provide reassurance of any continued investigation into the problem.
  7. The landlord did not provide a response to the stage 2 complaint until after a further request from this Service. It should have provided its response within 20 working days of the resident’s request. However, it did not do so until 3 June 2024, which was 52 days after the resident raised the escalated complaint.
  8. The complaint response provided no detail of the landlord carrying out an investigation. When explaining its understanding of the complaint, it reworded the resident’s email rather than providing an in-depth account of what should have happened and why it did not happen. The landlord offered no explanation for the significant delays or the service failings that led to them. The proposed resolution from the landlord offered no reassurance or timeframe for the repairs, merely saying that it was “in contact” with the neighbour to arrange an appointment. Given the lack of timeframes provided throughout, it is understandable that the resident remained unhappy with this proposed resolution.
  9. Ultimately, the landlord failed to provide timely or good quality responses to the resident’s complaint. It did not demonstrate a proportionate level of empathy given the frustration set out in the resident’s complaint over a severe problem at her property. Had it managed these complaints more effectively and had oversight of the proposed actions, it is likely this could have been resolved sooner. Having considered the failings identified in this report, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the chief executive of the landlord is required to provide an apology to the resident either in person, or in writing. The resident should be given the option as to how the apology will be delivered.
  2. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord should complete a post-inspection following any recent works and produce a full report on its findings. This should ensure that all leaks and possible causes of damp and mould are now repaired and that all remedial works have been completed to a good and lasting standard. The landlord should provide a copy of the report to the resident within 14 days of the post-inspection, including a timescale for any works that it finds to be outstanding.
  3. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £2,000 to the resident (inclusive of the £100 award it proposed through its complaints process), made up of:
    1. £1,800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould;
    2. £200 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of her complaints.
  4. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.