London Borough of Lambeth (202430381)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202430381 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London Borough of Lambeth |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Leaseholder |
|
Date |
24 October 2025 |
Background
- The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, ground-floor flat with her daughter. The resident complained that the landlord had not been clear on whether she would need Planning Permission to replace her windows. She also raised concerns over the landlord providing unclear information about its new planned works programme. The resident asked us to investigate as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s final response.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the windows in her property.
- We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the windows in her property.
- There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The resident’s request to replace the windows in her property
- We found that:
- The landlord delayed unreasonably in responding to the resident’s email requesting guidance on 3 July 2024. However, given that the resident had already been provided with the requested information on several prior occasions, the delay was of minimal detriment.
- The landlord apologised for the delay and highlighted learning in its stage 1 response.
Complaint handling
- We found that the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaints at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaint process. This was not compliant with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
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 its complaint handling. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 21 November 2025 |
|
2 |
Compensation order
The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the failures in complaint handling. |
No later than 21 November 2025 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to confirm its position on her liability for future window replacement costs at the block. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
24 August 2023 |
The resident emailed the landlord and said she would like to replace the windows in her home. She provided details of her plans including a schedule of works. |
|
19 June 2024 |
The landlord wrote to the resident confirming that her application to replace her windows had been approved following a surveyor inspection on 18 June 2024. |
|
3 July 2024 |
The resident wrote to the landlord and said she was struggling to get a definite answer as to whether she needed Planning Permission to replace her windows. She said she had already received Landlord’s Consent and a Building Notice. |
|
22 August 2024 |
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said the landlord had failed to provide clear guidance on whether Planning Permission was required for her to replace her windows. She had also requested an update on the landlord’s 2024 / 25 planned works programme and said she had not received a clear answer on this. She said the issue had caused her unnecessary distress and financial loss. To resolve her complaint, she said she would like a clear and detailed answer to both queries. |
|
20 September 2024 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It partially upheld the complaint and said:
|
|
20 September 2024 |
The resident escalated her complaint. She said:
|
|
25 October 2024 |
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It partially upheld the complaint and said it:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the delays had caused distress as her windows were in disrepair and she was unable to maintain a warm home. She said she had been inconvenienced by having to request updates from the landlord, and that contractor costs had risen while she was waiting for an answer. She wanted the landlord to grant prompt permission for her to replace her windows in writing, and to assure her that she would not be liable for future window maintenance costs in the block. |
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 request to replace her windows |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
What we did not investigate
- In recent correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised concerns over a Building Control fee refund. As this did not form part of the resident’s original complaint to the landlord, we have not investigated any further. The landlord must be given an opportunity to investigate any new issues through its internal complaint processes. The resident can raise this as a new complaint with the landlord if required.
What we did investigate
- The landlord responded to the resident’s initial request to replace her windows on 6 September 2023. This was 9 working days later, which was a timely response. The landlord was clear that the work may require Planning Permission which would need to be sought separately from Landlord’s Consent. It asked the resident to contact its Planning team for further advice and provided contact details.
- In the same email, the landlord asked the resident to contact its “Capital Works” team to find out if there were any plans for the landlord to replace the building’s windows as part of a planned works programme. It provided contact details for the relevant team.
- There was no further contact between the landlord and the resident until May 2024. On 8 May 2024, the landlord emailed the resident referring to a conversation that had taken place the day before. It said that the Capital Works team had completed stock condition surveys and were developing a five-year rolling planned works programme. It said it was unable to provide the resident with any further information, and it was up to her whether she wanted to go ahead with applying to replace her windows or wait until the end of the year for an update.
- The information provided by the landlord up to this point was clear and timely. It was thorough in its explanations of the relevant consents the resident may have needed to obtain. The landlord also provided as much information as it had available about its Capital Works programme to give the resident the opportunity to make an informed decision. This was positive.
- It is unclear from the documentary evidence available when the resident submitted an official request for Landlord’s Consent, however the landlord sent a confirmation of receipt to the resident on 15 May 2024. It again advised the resident to contact the Building Control and Planning departments to find out if any further consents were required. It said a surveyor would need to inspect the property and for the resident to get in touch if she did not hear anything within 15 working days. Setting a timeframe was reasonable as it allowed the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations.
- The landlord acted reasonably in providing written confirmation of Landlord’s Consent on the next working day after the surveyor inspection.
- The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s query on 3 July 2024. The landlord’s records show that it did not action the resident’s email until 14 August 2024, at which point it requested guidance from its Planning team. The landlord then responded to the resident on 28 August 2024 with the same planning guidance that it included in its stage 1 response. This was almost 2 months later, which inconvenienced the resident who said she felt unable to move forward without an answer from the landlord.
- The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 1 response. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and outlined learning around cross-department communication. This was positive and showed the landlord tried to put things right for the resident.
- While the landlord delayed in answering the resident’s email on 3 July 2024, it had already provided information about Planning Permission to the resident on several occasions prior. It was the resident’s responsibility to follow the landlord’s earlier guidance and contact the planning team. The delayed email response from the landlord therefore did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint.
- The resident has confirmed to us that she has since replaced her windows.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord has not provided evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint or her escalation request. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is clear that complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt at both stages. This was a failing.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 response 21 working days after the resident first complained. We are unable to assess the extent of the delay against the landlord’s policy, which says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement. However, the landlord accepted that it had delayed at stage 1 in its stage 2 response. It apologised to the resident and set out learning, which was reasonable.
- The landlord failed to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint at stage 1. Sections 6.7. and 6.18. of the Code set out that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition at both stages. This caused time and effort to the resident as she then had to escalate her complaint. The landlord rectified the issue reasonably by apologising to the resident and fully addressing all points of the complaint at stage 2.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 response 25 working days after the resident requested her complaint be escalated. We are unable to assess whether this response was issued in a timely manner due to the absence of an acknowledgement.
Learning
- In both of its complaint responses, the landlord highlighted learning in relation to the substantive issue and complaint handling. It said it would engage in cross-departmental discussion to consider how to respond to queries quickly, and that it was taking steps to ensure complaint response times improve. We recommend that the landlord takes this learning forward if it has not already done so.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- It is unclear whether the absence of stage 1 and stage 2 acknowledgements from the evidence was a record keeping failure, or whether the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaints. In any case, it has impacted our ability to thoroughly assess the landlord’s complaint handling.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication with the resident was generally positive. The landlord replied to contact from the resident in a timely manner on almost all occasions and was consistent with the information it provided. The landlord accepted responsibility for the communication failing identified in the assessment.