London Borough of Lambeth (202449187)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449187

London Borough of Lambeth

25 September 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Damp and mould and drainage issues.
2. A leak into the property.
3. The condition of the windows.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority, which started in April 2009. The property is described as a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident reported damp and mould issues in the property on 28 September 2023. The landlord arranged an appointment for 12 October 2023 to assess rising damp in the property. The resident raised a complaint the same day. She said that:
1. Surveyors had inspected the property, but no works were carried out.
2. The unresolved damp and mould were adversely affecting her health, and her personal items had been damaged.
3. She was concerned the ceiling would collapse due to the continuous leak from the property above hers.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 6 December 2023. It said it would conduct a survey to identify and address any drainage issues. It arranged an appointment for 11 December 2023 to address damp and mould issues. It then subsequently carried out a CCTV survey to the drain on 28 December 2023.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 4 April 2024. She complained that the windows in the property were rotten and unsafe. She said damp and mould issues and the leak from the above property remained unresolved.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 23 May 2024. It acknowledged the resident had experienced distress due to the delays in carrying out the outstanding repairs. The landlord said its contractors were working with their planners to schedule in plastering and thermal boarding works to address damp and mould.

Post complaints events

The resident contacted the landlord on 31 May and 8 July 2024 for an update on the outstanding repairs. The landlord’s contractor (drainage company) attended on 14 October 2024. It carried out works to the drain to prevent recurring blockages and conducted a CCTV survey.
The landlord’s contractors visited the property on various occasions from February to July 2025. It noted during most of the visits that it was unable to gain access or that the resident refused works. During this period, the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the delays, poor communication, and overall handling of the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould caused a detriment to her health. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether a landlord’s action or inaction caused or worsened a health condition. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or by way of a personal injury. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
We note the resident’s complaint about damage caused to her personal belongings. We have considered the landlord’s general response to the resident’s claim for compensation and any distress or inconvenience she may have experienced. The resident is advised to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue the matter.
Part of the issues raised by the resident with our service was the landlord’s reported promise to install new flooring. Based on the evidence, this is a new issue which she did not raise in the original complaint to the landlord. Therefore, we will not consider the matter under this investigation. The resident should raise the issue as a new complaint to the landlord, under its complaints process if she wishes to pursue the matter.
The resident complained that the damp and mould, and issues with the drain had been pending since 2022. The evidence indicates this may have been a recurring issue. We have also noted that the landlord carried out mould treatment and associated repairs to the property in December 2022. We have not found evidence of further reports until the resident’s report of September 2023. For this reason, our investigation focusses on the events that occurred from September 2023 that the landlord has also addressed under its complaints process.

The resident’s concerns about damp and mould and drainage issues

The landlord’s repairs and damp policy states that it will:
1. Arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 days, or sooner in emergency situations.
2. Agree and write an action plan with timeframes with the resident to resolve the damp.
3. Offer ongoing support if the resident’s home has persistent damp and allocate a surveyor who will act as their healthy homes partner and point of contact.
4. Arrange the necessary work and stay in touch until it is completed.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that the investigating officer should:
1. Consider applying a remedy if they find that a service failure has occurred which has adversely affected the complainant.
2. Offer a remedy which puts the complainant back in the position that they would have been (where possible) in if the service failure had not occurred.
3. Consider the time taken to resolve the matter, amount of time and effort required by the complainant and inadequacy of the landlord’s previous responses.
The resident was concerned that issues with the drainage were causing rising damp and mould in the property. Following the resident’s reports in September and October 2023 it was appropriate that the landlord arranged a survey to assess rising damp in the property. While this was initially scheduled for 12 October 2023 there was a delay of approximately 12 weeks in completing the survey. This was not within the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy.
The cause of the delay was not clarified in the records provided by the landlord. Also, we have not seen evidence that it provided regular updates to the resident. This was not appropriate. The resident had reported that continued exposure to the damp and mould was causing symptoms such as itchy eyes, breathing issues and a cough.
Despite the resident’s concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on her health, the landlord delayed measures in mitigating the situation. It did not start mould treatment and the related repairs to the affected areas until 11 December 2023 (this fell outside the 28 days stated in its repairs policy). While the landlord carried out mould washes on 11 and 18 December 2023 other works remained unfinished as of 4 April 2024. This prompted the resident to raise a stage 2 complaint. She expressed distress, frustration, and dissatisfaction over the prolonged delays in remedying damp and mould and failure by the landlord to arrange follow-up works to the drain.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response (dated 23 May 2024) that the resident had experienced inconvenience due to the delays in completing the repairs. While it offered assurances that pending works would be scheduled in, it did not demonstrate that it provided ongoing support to the resident. This was a missed opportunity to provide a clear plan of action (with timeframes) to the resident in line with its damp policy. This would have caused the resident some uncertainty.
While the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about damp, it did not explain the next steps following the drainage inspection. We have seen from the evidence that a further inspection was carried out on 14 October 2024, along with works to address recurring blockages. This was approximately 12 months after the resident initially raised the matter. The landlord failed to communicate reasons for the delay and why it was conducting another survey to the drain. This would have caused the resident some frustration. While the survey report indicated there were defects, the landlord has not set out any recommendations to resolve this.
We consider that the landlord did not follow its damp and mould policy correctly. The resident incurred time and trouble in chasing up the repairs for approximately 12 months. The landlord has not provided satisfactory information that shows it had fully resolved the issue. It did not communicate a clear schedule of works with the resident to address the damp and mould issues.
The evidence shows the landlord visited the property on various occasions following its stage 2 response to either carry out repairs or inspections. However, it did not clearly set out what repairs it aimed to resolve on these visits, and this caused the resident confusion and uncertainty.
We have found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould and drainage issues. The landlord acknowledged the resident had experienced challenges, distress, frustration and inconvenience and it apologised for it. It was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to its risk and insurance team to request compensation for damaged personal goods. However, the landlord failed to consider an appropriate remedy for the adverse impact of its handling of the repairs on the resident. This was not in line with its compensation policy.
To address this, we have awarded £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience to the resident. This covers the period from October 2023 to October 2024 where the resident had actively pursued the matter with the landlord. This is in line with our remedies’ guidance for maladministration, where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

The resident’s concerns about a leak into the property

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will aim to complete routine repairs within 28 days.
The landlord’s estates and neighbourhood management policy states it will work effectively with all departments and its partners, as one organisation to protect residents, improve outcomes for vulnerable residents, maintaining its assets, as well as enhancing neighbourhoods and the borough.
The landlord’s homeowners’ handbook states that the leaseholder must keep their home in good repair and condition. If the leaseholder has breached any of the terms or conditions of the lease, the landlord will:
1. Inform them in writing and advise the steps in remedying the breach.
2. Where they do not complaint, it will refer the matter to the court or the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a decision and take further legal action where necessary.
The resident initially complained about a leak from the property above hers in October 2023. The landlord stated in its internal communications that the property belonged to a non-resident leaseholder. As the freeholder, the landlord has the responsibility of ensuring that it proactively manages issues that could potentially affect the structure of the property.
The landlord has not demonstrated it proactively worked with the leaseholder to investigate the source of the leak, despite the resident’s concerns that the bathroom ceiling may collapse. The evidence suggests its visit to the flat above the resident’s on 25 November 2024 (after the complaints process was exhausted) may have been a follow-on visit. However, it had not documented dates of previous visits in the repairs log. It noted comments by the residing tenant that the leaseholder had:
1. Sent a plumber, but they only installed a shower curtain.
2. Not conducted a proper investigation into the source of the leak.
The evidence indicates the landlord arranged works to repair the damaged ceiling in February 2025 but it had not confirmed whether the leak had been resolved. While the landlord assured the resident it would write to the leaseholder, the evidence indicates it did not do so until March 2025. The records provided by the landlord do not confirm it followed up its communication with the leaseholder, in line with its policies.
The landlord failed to address this matter within a reasonable timeframe, and it did not consider the impact of the ongoing leak on the resident. She advised the landlord of her concerns that the ceiling might fall on her while using the bath. The landlord missed several opportunities to resolve the matter, and it failed to communicate effectively with the resident. The evidence shows the resident continued to follow up the matter as of 22 May 2025 approximately 17 months after she reported the leak. The landlord has not confirmed, from the evidence provided, that it worked collaboratively with all parties (including the leaseholder) involved to put things right for the resident within a reasonable timeframe.
We have found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a leak. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience for many months. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. While this is noted, we have not seen evidence of any learning throughout its handling of the case. The landlord also failed to offer an appropriate remedy in line with its compensation policy.
To address this, we have awarded £25 compensation for each month from November 2023 to May 2025. This comes to a total of £425 for the 17 months the resident had experienced distress, inconvenience and time and trouble due to the landlord’s handling of the issue. We have also ordered the landlord to follow up any outstanding actions to address the leak.

The resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows

The landlord inspected the resident’s windows on 4 March 2024 and noted that some windows in the property needed to be replaced. This was approximately 17 days after the resident’s report and within the 28-day timeframe for resolving routine repairs. Following its inspection, it noted some windows in the property needed to be replaced. These were appropriate actions.
The landlord’s repairs policy indicates it will aim to complete such works under its planned repairs programme and within 90 days. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide updates to the resident or an expected timeframe for the works. We have not seen evidence that it did so. Although the resident complained further in April 2024, stating the window frames were rotten, the landlord did not update her on the next steps.
From the evidence seen, the works remain outstanding. The landlord has provided a copy of its schedule of works with a target date of 22 July 2025. However, it has not confirmed if it had agreed dates with the resident to complete the works.
The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations concerning the repairs to the windows due to its poor communication. The landlord’s actions amount to maladministration.
The landlord did not offer a remedy for the service failure. To address this, we have ordered £200 as compensation for the frustration and inconvenience caused over approximately 17 months. This is in line with our remedies’ guidance for maladministration, where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Handling of the associated complaints

The landlord’s complaints policy (dated March 2014) had 3 complaints handling stages:
1. Early resolution – where it aimed to resolve issues straightaway without providing a written response to the resident.
2. Local resolution stage – where it would acknowledge complaints in writing and respond within 20 working days.
3. Review stage – No timeframe set out for a response.
The landlord has 2 stage complaints handling process (effective April 2024). It will aim to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt and respond to:
1. Stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The response should include:
1. The decision on the complaint whether it is upheld or partly upheld.
2. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
The landlord did not dispute it failed to handle the complaints in line with its complaints handling procedures. It responded to the stage 1 complaint approximately 39 working days after the resident raised the complaint. Although the landlord apologised for the delay to the stage 1 response, it did not learn from this. It also responded to the stage 2 complaint 35 working days after the resident complained and it failed to offer apologies for the repeated error. The responses were clearly outside the timescales set out in its complaints policies at the time. This would have caused the resident some frustration.
While the complaint responses acknowledged there were service failures with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs, it failed to provide a decision, resolution or suitable remedy to the issues raised by the resident. This was not appropriate, as its complaints policy seeks to put things right and put residents back in the position they would have been if the fault had not occurred.
We have found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the complaints. To address this, we have awarded £200 for the distress and inconvenience the resident had experienced. This is in line with our remedies’ guidance for maladministration, where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.
Following our involvement with the case, the landlord has conducted a review of its handling of the complaints. It said learning from the case had been captured and would be included in an ongoing complaint training and within our regular learning from complaints communication, shared with all staff involved in handling complaints.
We have not made any further orders in this regard.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of our Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. Damp and mould and drainage issues.
2. A leak into the property.
3. The condition of the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of our Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must carry out the following orders:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1325 broken down as:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience due to the handling of the damp and mould.
  2. £425 for the distress and inconvenience due to the handling of the leak.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience due to its handling of the concerns about the windows.
  4. £200 for the time and trouble and inconvenience due to the handling of the complaints.
  5. Provide evidence showing payment has been made directly to the resident.
3. Follow up its communication with the leaseholder, in line with its policy, to ensure they investigate and resolve the leak into the resident’s property.
4. Arrange a specialist survey to the property to determine any outstanding works (to the windows, damp and mould and the bathroom ceiling following the leak), if not already done. It must:
  1. Share its findings from the inspection with us and the resident.
  2. Set out the scope of works for any pending repairs with timescales for completion and share with us and the resident.