London Borough of Lambeth (202501648)

Decision
Case ID	202501648
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lambeth
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	9 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in a ground-floor flat. In October 2024, she reported a leak coming from the roof of the storage cupboard. She also said the communal paving behind the property was damaged and raised safety concerns about both issues.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a leak.
2. The resident’s reports of damaged paving in the communal area.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord was responsible for maladministration for its handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a leak.
2. The resident’s reports of damaged paving in the communal area.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a leak

The landlord did not carry out repairs to resolve the leak within its policy timeframes. Although it acknowledged its failings, it has not provided an adequate remedy to reflect the impact on the resident.

Reports of damaged paving in the communal area

The landlord did not repair the damaged paving within its policy timeframes and did not properly consider the health and safety risks. Although it acknowledged its failings, it has not provided an adequate remedy to reflect the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling 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 this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 06 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows: £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of damage paving in the communal area. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 06 February 2026
3	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure that the works to repair the communal concrete stairs above the cupboard and the damaged communal paving are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 06 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 January 2025	The resident made a formal complaint. She said the contractors had not contacted her about the damaged communal paving. She explained that the repairs were overdue and the issue remained unresolved.
15 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It explained that it had booked an appointment for 17 January 2025 to inspect the paving and would aim to complete the repair as soon as possible.
30 January 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. She said the contractor missed 3 agreed-upon appointments. She also stated that she took unpaid days off work to attend these visits. She added that she had already sent the landlord photos of the leak above the storage cupboard and the damaged paving, but no action was taken.
6 March 2025	The landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It apologised for the missed appointments, delays, poor communication, and inconvenience caused. It said its contractor visited on 31 January 2025 and found a leak in the storage cupboard that caused the ceiling to collapse. The landlord explained that the leak came from the communal concrete stairs above and required a specialist contractor. It also said a specialist sub-contractor was needed for the paving repairs. It said it was waiting for confirmation of their attendance and promised to update the resident once it knew the next steps.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In her referral to us, the resident said she had repeatedly asked for the repairs to be completed, but the landlord failed to keep its promises. She explained that the repairs had been outstanding for more than 12 months. She also said the damaged paving was dangerous and had caused her to trip several times.

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	Reports of a leak
Finding	Maladministration

The resident raised health and safety concerns about the electrics in the storage cupboard in her initial October 2024 report and again in December 2024 after the roof above the storage room collapsed. Despite this, the landlord delayed taking action, leaving the resident to chase for updates. The landlord’s own records described the issue as a “health and safety concern,” yet it showed no urgency in inspecting the problem.
Its records show that attempts were made to arrange an inspection, but it is unclear when these occurred. The landlord’s operatives finally inspected on 31 January 2025 and found the leak coming from the communal concrete stairs above the cupboard. They recommended hiring a specialist contractor to resurface the external steps. However, the resident says this work is still outstanding.
A structural engineer attended on 14 February 2025 and recommended remedial works to resolve the issue. They noted that the scope of work depended on whether the storage cupboard was part of the resident’s lease. However, the landlord did not check this for many months and only did so well after issuing its final response. This was a missed chance for the landlord to confirm what work was needed to meet its obligations.
In this case, the resident experienced time and trouble from missed appointments and distress and inconvenience from poor communication and long delays in resolving the issue. The landlord acknowledged these failings in its final response and offered an apology. However, this did not fully address the detriment caused to the resident. The matter is unresolved, more than 14 months after the resident first raised it and well beyond the landlord’s repair policy timescales.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 in compensation, in line with our remedies guidance for failings that adversely affected her. We have also ordered the landlord to start the necessary works to repair the source of the leak.

Complaint	Reports of damaged paving in the communal area.
Finding	Maladministration

Many of the same failings occurred. The landlord did not treat the issue with urgency or follow its repair policy timescales. This was despite the resident stating from the outset that it was a health and safety concern, explaining that her mother had tripped twice on the cracked paving and that it had become a hazard. There were also several missed appointments.
Again, the landlord failed to act on the recommendations from its operatives and the engineer within a reasonable timeframe. This is especially concerning because the report highlighted that the rear surfaces were uneven and posed a trip hazard.
The landlord’s final response listed the works needed to repair the damaged paving and stated it was waiting for its subcontractor to confirm an attendance date. However, evidence shows the landlord did not raise a repair order until 9 April 2025, over a month after its final response, and gave no explanation for the delay. The resident has told us this issue is still unresolved more than a year after her initial report.
Although the landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised in its final response, this did not go far enough to address the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident reported that the damaged paving had caused her to trip several times and that she was worried about her safety. The landlord’s actions showed it did not properly consider the health and safety concerns, and delays continued even after its final response.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 in compensation and to commence repairs to the paving as it committed to.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. We have not seen whether the landlord acknowledged either of the resident’s complaints. However, it provided a formal response at both stages of the process within the timescales set out within its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Learning

The landlord should prioritise issues that pose health and safety concerns, such as trip hazards.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record-keeping was generally satisfactory, but its repair logs could have been clearer. It should clearly show when jobs were reported, started, and completed.

Communication

The communication was poor. The landlord should communicate clearly and regularly with residents about the progress of repairs.