London Borough of Lambeth (202404320)

Background

1. The resident complained about the landlord’s communication and delays relating to a repair he had reported for a cracked external wall.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of cracks in an external wall column.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of cracks in an external wall column.
   2. Complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Report of cracks in an external wall column

4. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it responded to the repair reports in line with its repairs policy. Its communication around the matter was poor.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord apologised for some delays in its complaint handling. However, it did not offer any redress for the failings we found in our investigation.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. Following the resident’s initial report of cracks in an external wall column, he chased the landlord for a response on 15 November 2023. It appropriately apologised for its delay to respond to him. It said it had raised a repair job which it would attend on 16 November 2023. It subsequently failed to attend to complete the repair on this date. We have seen no evidence of a repair record which indicates a record keeping failure.
7. The evidence shows that the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the matter was poor. It failed to keep him updated on its actions which led to him needing to chase it for information. Its failure to communicate effectively likely left the resident feeling frustrated and ignored.
8. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it appointed its contractor to carry out the repair work. It said due to this, the resident should have raised issues with the contractor. Our spotlight report on repairs highlights that landlords remain responsible for repairs even when outsourcing. They must maintain oversight of contractors and assist residents effectively when needed. Its response was therefore not reasonable.
9. The landlord apologised for its delay to complete the repair in its complaint responses. However, these contained inaccuracies that indicate it did not investigate its records adequately. It discussed events in an unrelated disrepair claim and said it would complete the repair to the external wall as part of these works. As this was not the case, its error caused the resident avoidable time, trouble, distress and inconvenience in attempting to get the matter resolved.
10. The landlord’s final response failed to demonstrate that it had carried out an adequate investigation into the delays to complete the repair work. This meant it was unable to offer an explanation as to why the repair had continued to remain outstanding for over 12 months. It also failed to offer any redress to the resident or identify any learning it would implement to prevent future delays. This was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident.
11. The resident has told us that following the landlord’s final response it subsequently completed the repair work on 11 August 2025. This was over 21 months after he reported it, and significantly outside of the 7-day timescale set out both in the landlord’s repairs policy and in its correspondence with the resident. We have made an order for it to apologise and pay compensation to recognise the time and trouble caused to the resident by its failings.

12. At the time of the complaint the landlord had a 2-stage complaints process. It said it would provide a full response to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 25 working days.
13. The complaints policy in use at the time did not comply with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which said landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. We are aware that it has subsequently updated its policy in April 2024, bringing it in line with the Code.
14. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within its policy timescales. He subsequently chased it on 3 January 2024 and 27 February 2024. There is no evidence it responded to this contact.
15. The landlord sent its stage 1 response over 9 months later than the timescale set out in its policy, following our intervention. There is no evidence that it contacted the resident to inform him its response would be delayed. Although it apologised for the delay, it failed to offer any redress or identify any learning to prevent delays in the future.
16. The landlord provided no evidence to show that it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. This was not in line with its policy. It did not acknowledge its failure to do so in its subsequent response.
17. Following further intervention from us, the landlord issued its final response 18 working days later than its policy timescale. While it apologised for the delay, it again failed to offer any redress to the resident. It also failed to identify how it would learn from the delays that had occurred throughout the case.
18. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address all the points raised by the resident. This caused him avoidable time and trouble in attempting to seek a response to matters included in his complaint and escalation request.
19. Given the failings discussed above we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made an order for compensation to recognise the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

20. In an inspection report published in January 2024, we made recommendations for the landlord about its complaint handling. Although we are aware that some events within this case took place during the time the landlord was implementing changes following our report, it is evident it did not adhere to all learning highlighted in its internal review. It should review this and ensure it adopts its learning in future cases.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord should consider reviewing its record keeping arrangements for complaints and repairs to ensure that these are robust. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and collated, both of actions completed and of resident contact. It may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

22. The landlord failed to communicate delays throughout the complaint process with the resident. It is important that it effectively manages residents’ expectations about how it intends to respond to concerns and that it keeps them informed of any delays and how it intends to mitigate the impact of these.