London Borough of Lambeth (202442249)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442249

London Borough of Lambeth

25 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 reports of:
1. Water ingress in the property.
2. Damp and mould in the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local council, which started in September 2023. The property is described as a 1-bedroom flat in a block of flats. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her household members. The resident advised us and the landlord that she has a respiratory condition, and she resides in the property with her young child.
The resident reported a leak into the kitchen in September 2023. The landlord attended around 26 September 2023 and noted works were completed on 23 November 2023. The resident complained on 14 December 2023 that the repairs carried out were not satisfactory as the leak was persistent. The evidence suggests the landlord attended on 4 occasions between February and April 2024 to resolve the leak.
The resident reported damp and mould around 27 September 2024. The landlord carried out a mould wash on 30 September 2024 to the affected areas in the property. The resident complained on 25 October 2024 that the damp and mould was recurring all over the property and treatments carried out by the landlord had not addressed the issue. She said this was affecting her health and she wanted to be moved from the property.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 5 November 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and assured the resident that operatives would re-attend on 6 and 12 November 2024. The landlord said it would check the newly fitted extractor fan, check the bath leak previously attended and carry out a further mould wash. It upheld the complaint.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 6 and 13 November 2024. She expressed continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the property. She said the mould washes were not resolving the issue and the condition of the property was adversely affecting hers and her daughter’s health.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 24 December 2024. It acknowledged the ongoing mould issue and water ingress had caused significant distress to the resident. It said it had taken steps to improve the situation by ensuring her extractor fan was functioning correctly to enhance ventilation, which should help reduce condensation. The landlord said it had scheduled an appointment for 27 January 2025 to investigate the water leak from the communal water tank affecting the property.

Events after the complaints process had been exhausted

The resident contacted the landlord on 6 January 2025 and asked to be moved from the property.
The landlord delivered a dehumidifier to the resident on 16 January 2025.
Following a housing disrepair inspection on 17 February 2025 it was recommended that the resident should be moved to temporary accommodation to allow further investigation and repairs.
The resident advised us on 10 April 2025 that:
1. The leak into the kitchen stopped in March 2024.
2. All the rooms in the property were covered in mould.
3. Her solicitor wrote to the landlord regarding the issues in the property, but legal action had not started.
The landlord noted on 21 May 2025 that alternative accommodation had been identified but was not yet ready.
The resident advised us on 2 July 2025 that the landlord had not moved her from the property or started the repairs to resolve the damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of water ingress in the property

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will aim to:
1. Give residents an option of a suitable time for an appointment.
2. Proactively monitor the journey of each repair.
3. Complete some routine repairs such as a leaking bath within 7 days and other routine repairs within 28 days.
The evidence provided by the landlord indicates it attended the property on 26 September 2023 to investigate the resident’s reports of a leak into the kitchen. This was within the timescales published in its repairs policy. It noted it was unable to access the resident’s flat, but it has not demonstrated (from the records provided) it gave the resident reasonable notice of the appointment, in line with its policy.
There was poor communication by the landlord regarding the repairs. We have not seen evidence that it contacted the resident to reschedule the appointment, following the failed visit in September 2023. This meant she had to chase up the progress of the repair on 11 October 2023 and 17 October 2023. The landlord arranged an appointment for 25 October 2023 but we have not been able to confirm, from the records provided, if this visit occurred and if repairs were completed.
We have seen from the evidence that the resident continued to ask for updates on 1 and 21 November 2023. While the landlord noted the repairs were completed on 23 November 2023, the evidence does not show what repairs were carried out. This brings to light further concerns about the landlord’s record keeping.
The resident expressed ongoing concerns between 14 December 2023 and 22 January 2024 about water ingress through the kitchen ceiling. She said works previously carried out had not been successful and she was unable to live in the property. While the evidence indicates some works were carried out externally (on 21 February 2024) we have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess the extent of any damage caused by water ingress in the property, and to confirm that works carried out had stopped the leak.
The resident advised us on 2 July 2025 that the leak into the kitchen abruptly stopped around March 2024 (approximately 6 months after the initial report). The landlord’s records support this as it noted the repairs were completed in April 2024. Although there were efforts by the landlord to resolve the repair sooner, the issue was not resolved within the published timescale of 28 days in its repairs policy. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
There were internal discussions by the landlord on 15 April 2024 about remedial works to the kitchen. It also noted on 29 May 2024 that the resident had called for an update on an inspection and that she was not living in the property. From the limited evidence available, the landlord did not assess the adverse impact of the leak on the resident. Also, it has not shown that it completed any repairs to put the property back to the position it would have been in had the leak not occurred. From the repairs history provided, the resident was still waiting for an inspection of the kitchen as of 1 October 2024. This was not reasonable.
The landlord apologised for the delay in addressing water ingress in the property in its stage 2 response dated 24 December 2024. It said this was due to the process it had to undertake to identify the source of the leak. While this is noted, we have found maladministration because the landlord:
1. Failed to communicate proactively with the resident or keep accurate records of the repairs throughout the history of the case.
2. Did not assess the impact of the leak on the resident or offer any remedy to put things right.
In deciding an appropriate level of redress, we have considered the overall detriment caused to the resident during the period September 2023 to April 2024. We have awarded £80 for each month (7 months) the resident had experienced the delay in resolving the leak. This comes to a total of £560 compensation for the distress and inconvenience to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where the landlord has acknowledged failings but not addressed the detriment to the resident.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs and damp policy states it will:
1. Prioritise the removal of mould and carry out the initial wash and treatment within 7 days.
2. Arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 days, or sooner in emergency situations.
3. Consider the individual circumstances of the household (where extensive works may be required), including any vulnerabilities, and whether or not it is appropriate to move residents out of their home at an early stage.
4. Agree and write an action plan (with timescales) with the resident to resolve the damp.
5. Allocate a surveyor to provide ongoing support if the property has persistent damp. They will act as a healthy homes partner and be the point of contact.
Based on the evidence the resident initially reported damp and mould on 27 September 2024. The landlord followed its policy and conducted a mould wash to the affected areas in the property on 30 September 2024.
The resident requested an inspection of the whole property on 11 October 2024 due to persistent mould. She said there was severe condensation in the property due to the state of the windows. The landlord carried out a further mould wash on 17 October 2024 and scheduled an inspection for 1 November 2024. This was within the 28-day timescale in its policy for the diagnosis of the cause of mould. The landlord also attended around 24 October 2023 to repair the extractor fan in the bathroom to resolve ventilation issues in the bathroom.
The resident expressed concerns between 25 October and 12 November 2024 that the mould washes were not effective or a long-term solution as it kept reoccurring. From the evidence seen it is not certain if the inspection booked for 1 November 2024 took place and the landlord had not:
1. Diagnosed the cause of the damp and mould within the times stated in its policy.
2. Agreed an action plan with timescales or kept in regular communication with the resident.
While the evidence indicates the landlord continued to treat the mould, it failed to respond to the resident’s request to be moved from the property. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess any health and safety risks to the resident and her child due to the persistent mould and decide if a temporary move was needed. This is not in adherence with its damp policy. This would have caused the resident frustration, distress, and inconvenience.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response dated 24 December 2024 that the ongoing mould issue had caused significant distress to the resident. It explained that the process of diagnosing the cause had resulted in delays thereby prolonging the distress to the resident. The landlord said it had taken steps to improve ventilation by ensuring the extractor fan was working. However, the records show the resident had expressed further concerns (on 6 and 11 December 2024) that the situation had not improved. This suggests the landlord was not actively listening to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord concluded that further investigation would be conducted through an inspection on 27 January 2025 and it would monitor the next steps following this.
While the landlord acknowledged the resident had experienced distress and inconvenience, it had not:
1. Considered the resident’s request for alternative accommodation due to concerns about her health which made her vulnerable to the damp and mould.
2. Offered a remedy that would put her back in the position she would have been in if the service failure had not occurred.
3. Demonstrated it had monitored the case or provided feedback to the resident as promised.
The resident continued to raise concerns about the condition of the property and the adverse effect on her health and her child’s. Despite a surveyor’s report on 7 March 2025 which found the property was not fit for human habitation, the resident said no further actions had been taken by the landlord. The landlord has not provided any evidence to the contrary nor responded to our request for an update on the case.
The report recommended that the landlord should move the resident into temporary accommodation and carry out extensive investigation and remedial works. She advised us during a telephone conversation on 2 July 2025 that the prolonged delays had caused her severe distress.
There is evidence of significant failings by the landlord which the resident said has adversely impacted her for approximately 10 months (September 2024 to July 2025). Due to the above, we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
To address this we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1236. This amount has been calculated based on 20% of the resident’s monthly rent of approximately £618 (£142.73 per week). This comes to a monthly award of £123.6 for 10 months. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where a series of significant failures have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.

The associated complaints

The landlord’s complaints policy states that:
1. A complaint must be raised when there is dissatisfaction expressed with the response to a service request, even if the handling of the service request remains ongoing.
2. It will consider a full range of remedies including a financial remedy where it is at fault to put things right.
3. It will aim to respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days and 20 working days (respectively) of acknowledging the complaint.
The resident initially raised a complaint about water ingress on 14 December 2023. She requested updates on 11 and 22 January 2024. While the landlord took steps to investigate the issue, it did not log the complaint or provide a formal response to the resident. It was not until the resident raised the matter again on 25 October 2024 that the landlord provided a formal response. There was some learning as the landlord raised the complaint promptly and responded within the published timescales. However, it failed to acknowledge the initial complaint was not answered or address the detriment to the resident.
Regarding the stage 2 complaint, we have not seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint. This would have caused the resident some uncertainty. The landlord took approximately 34 working days to respond to the complaint. This was far outside the 20 working days published in its complaints policy. It did not acknowledge the delay, apologise for it, or offer redress for any inconvenience to the resident. This was not appropriate.
While the landlord acknowledged the resident had experienced distress and inconvenience in its overall handling of her case, it failed to consider compensation in line with its policy. This was not appropriate. It is also noted that the landlord failed to commit to actions agreed in the stage 2 response. Our complaints handling code (April 2024) advises that any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. Failure to do so would have caused the resident frustration, distress, and inconvenience.
Due to these reasons, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints. We have awarded £200 to address this. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where the landlord has acknowledged failings but not addressed the detriment to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must carry out these orders:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1996 broken down as:
  1. £560 for the distress and inconvenience for its handling of the water ingress.
  2. £1236 for the distress and inconvenience for its handling of the damp and mould.
  3. £200 for the time and trouble and frustration for the complaint handling.
3. Further to its stage 2 response the landlord must revisit the outstanding actions relating to its investigation of the damp and mould. It must:
  1. Write to the resident with an action plan to address any outstanding repairs. This should include the schedule of works and the expected timescales for completion.
  2. The landlord should provide an update on its search for temporary accommodation. It should provide us and resident a timeframe it expects to move her from the property.
4. Any compensation awarded should be paid directly to the resident.
Within 12 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Review its handling of this case to identify what went wrong and set out any learnings. It must:
  1. Advise us of the measures it would put in place to ensure it proactively monitors the journey of each repair in line with its repairs policy. This should include an improvement in its communication and record keeping.
  2. Consider measures it can put in place to monitor any actions agreed following completion of complaints, to enable effective handling of complaints.
  3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.