London Borough of Lambeth (202331345)

Decision
Case ID	202331345
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lambeth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	19 February 2026

 

Background

1. The resident reported a communal leak occurred in August 2022 resulting in damage to her property. The resident complained about delays in the landlord response to repairs and redecoration works which resulted in damp and mould. She said the landlord had completed some works, but several repairs remained outstanding.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to reports of a leak, damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to leak, damp, and mould.
   2. Reasonable redress in relation to the associated complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Leak, damp and mould.

4. The landlord unreasonably delayed its repairs and redecoration works. It did not maintain adequate records, leading to poor oversight and inconsistent communication. It did not provide a clear plan for completing works or adequately respond to the resident’s concerns. Although the landlord acknowledged some failings, it did not offer an appropriate remedy. The repairs remained outstanding after its final response, showing it did not learn from the complaint or take steps to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.

Complaint handling.

5. The landlord did not respond within the timescale it set out in its complaint handling policy, but it acknowledged and apologised for the delay at stage 1, which was reasonable redress.

 

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 provided by the head of service. 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 10 March 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £750 made up as follows: £550 for distress and inconvenience experienced relating to its response to the leaks damp and mould. £100 for missed appointments. £50 for time and trouble in chasing repairs. £50 for lack of clarity regarding liability claims. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 10 March 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord is to consider, if it has not already done so, its process for the reimbursement of electricity for the use of a dehumidifier which the resident reported to it after its final complaint response in November 2023.
As part of good practice, the landlord is to share its recent inspection results with the resident and provide the resident with confirmation about the action it will take.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 July 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: Following a communal leak in August 2022 there was damage to the bedrooms, corridors, and flooring within her property. A surveyor said it had to dry out before repairs could start but the landlord subsequently failed to take responsibility for the damages. There were multiple contractor visits, but repairs did not take place. Operatives did not attend to complete planned works in June and July 2023 due to no available operatives. The landlord completed a visual asbestos inspection but no actual testing despite a previous report indicating asbestos was ‘strongly presumed.’  She wished for the agreed repairs to be actioned as well as compensation for the loss of earnings for missed appointments, time and effort, and distress and inconvenience.
7 July 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said it would respond by 3 August 2023.
11 August 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and said: It upheld the resident’s complaint. Following its inspection on 15 August 2023 it said it would advise the resident on how long it would take to complete outstanding works and how it would address asbestos works before it completed the repairs. It apologised for the delay in the complaint response.
18 August 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: The landlord’s response did not address her complaint about poor customer service, lack of consideration and professionalism. Works were still outstanding and there was no confirmation about whether the landlord would fix the flooring, fill cracks in kitchen, living room, bedroom and corridor, remove asbestos and complete decoration works to the affected rooms. The landlord did not confirm if it would compensate her for loss of earnings and distress or provide a written apology for its surveyor and the contractor’s supervisors.
30 August 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint acknowledgment. It said it would respond by 25 September 2023.
14 September 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It was liaising with its repairs team about the case. An inspection took place on 1 September 2023 and following this it agreed to adjust its work order to reflect the following action plan: – Renew damaged laminate flooring. – Fill cracks in rooms affected. – To complete decorative works of affected rooms. – Encapsulate asbestos to ceiling and provide new asbestos report. It invited the resident to contact them directly to avoid any delay in communication. It apologised for any inconvenience and stress caused. It acknowledged it could have done things quicker and communicated better which it said was mostly due to the scope of works. It did not offer any financial redress, but said it endeavoured to complete the works as soon as possible.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us on 5 December 2023. She said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because there was an extensive list of outstanding works. She said the landlord’s operative refused to do some of the works required and had completed poor quality paintwork. She said there was damp and mould in the property and insects crawling out of the cracks and on home furnishings. The resident was seeking a financial remedy for missed appointments, loss of earnings due to time taken off work unnecessarily, and damage to furniture.
2 February 2026	The resident has told this Service that there was a new leak into the property in November 2025 which has worsened the condition of the property. She said this has impacted on her health as she now suffers from a chronic skin condition and asthma. As a result, we have sent the landlord an Awaab’s Law notification letter, indicating that there could be a hazard which could fall under Awaab’s Law and that the resident has indicated that there could be a material change due to the reported impact on her health.

 

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	Response to leak, damp, and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

 

 

What we have not investigated

6. The resident said she experienced a further similar leak incident in November 2025. She said this compounded the damage caused by the original leak. This investigation can only consider complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, we cannot consider the new leak incident because the landlord must have the opportunity to respond to any concerns about the new issue. The resident can make a new complaint to the landlord within 12 months of the new incident.
7. The resident told us that her health has worsened due to damp conditions after the initial leak. While we are sympathetic to the resident’s position, it is not within our role to determine whether the landlord’s actions caused or contributed to a health condition, which would be a matter for a court or personal injury process. We can, however, consider the distress and inconvenience caused by any identified service failure.
8. The resident has told us she is seeking compensation for damage to flooring and furnishings. Determining legal liability for such damage is outside our remit. It would fall to the landlord’s insurer or, depending on the circumstances, the resident’s contents insurer. There is no evidence establishing whether the resident had contents insurance or whether it would have covered the items affected. Even if the landlord could establish liability, it is not guaranteed that the landlord’s insurance would cover such damage. However, the evidence does not show that the landlord signposted the resident to its insurer as required by its own policy. We recognise this was not reasonable which we acknowledge as part of our findings.

 

What we have investigated

9. This investigation focuses on the period between 26 August 2022 and 14 September 2023, which covers the landlord’s handling of the original leak and its final complaint response. Our assessment will also consider any actions that the landlord committed to as part of its response to the complaint under investigation.
10. The resident reported a leak on 26 August 2022 caused by an open tap in an upstairs flat. She told us the leak stopped the same day and that a surveyor attended. The landlord’s repairs policy classifies emergencies as issues that risk safety or cause serious damage and says it will respond within one working day. The policy explains there may be a delay if forced entry is necessary.
11. The evidence available does not include records of the landlord’s initial actions. We cannot establish who instructed emergency services, but their involvement was reasonable because the landlord cannot force entry without them. Based on the limited information available, we are satisfied the landlord responded to the initial leak in line with its emergency repair obligations.
12. The landlord’s policies require it to complete routine repairs within 28 days and planned repairs within 90 days. Its damp and disrepair policy states it will assess disrepair promptly, appoint a surveyor as a point of contact, and agree a schedule of works within a reasonable time. There is no set period for what length of time it considers to be reasonable, only that it considers the urgency and seriousness of the repairs and a resident’s vulnerabilities.
13. The resident reported damage that had been caused by the leak on 5 September 2022, listing issues with cupboards, walls, ceilings, door frames and flooring. There is no evidence the landlord took any action at this point. Almost a year later, in May and June 2023, it raised repair entries for leak‑related repairs, but again there is no evidence of progress. By July 2023 the resident reported a wide range of outstanding works, and the landlord provided no explanation for the prolonged delay.
14. The landlord set out its intention to confirm timescales after its inspection in its stage 1 complaint response. However, by stage 2 it still had not provided a plan for completing the repairs. Although it acknowledged delays and difficulties in resourcing operatives due to the scope of the work required, it did not provide a timeframe for the repairs or any offer of redress. The delays were excessive and substantially outside what we would consider reasonable.
15. The resident has told us inspections took place in August and October 2022. There were significant gaps in the landlord’s records. There are no corresponding repair logs or work orders that clearly and accurately explain when it completed or monitored works, and no evidence of surveyor reports despite the records showing references to inspections in October 2022, June 2023, August and September 2023. The landlord also asked the resident several times to provide photographs of the issues, that we have not seen. This created an unnecessary burden for the resident and reflected a lack of internal record keeping. We do not know if the resident provided the landlord with photographs. However, the landlord did not make its inspection records or communications about its survey results available to us, so we do not know if it had retained them.
16. The landlord’s policies require it to maintain accurate and auditable repair records, including photographs of completed works. The absence of such records severely limited its ability to respond effectively and to oversee the progression of works. It also prevented us from determining which repairs it completed and when. This amounted to a failure in record management and contributed to the wider service failings.
17. The resident said she had to continually chase the landlord for updates and experienced at least 3 missed contractor appointments between April and June 2023. She also said the landlord did not provide clear information about the nature of the works or who was responsible for completing them.
18. The repairs and damp policies require the landlord to communicate in a timely and sympathetic manner, to provide a clear action plan, and to offer a single point of contact. The evidence does not show that the landlord did this. Instead, there were repeated breakdowns in communication, ongoing confusion about the scope of works particularly regarding flooring, and no consistent point of contact for the resident. These communication failings added to the resident’s frustration and contributed to the overall detriment.
19. The landlord listed the outstanding works following an inspection in September 2023. However, the records show confusion between the landlord and its operatives about whether they could carry out flooring repairs and the extent of the repairs required. This inconsistency reflects poor coordination that continued after its final complaint response and further evidences the landlord’s lack of oversight over its repairs process. Even after its final complaint response, the works remained incomplete, and the records do not show the extent of the repairs completed or any subsequent offer of redress.
20. The tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for insuring the structure of the building but not residents’ personal items. Its compensation policy requires the landlord to signpost residents to its insurer for damage arising from issues not covered by landlord’s repairing responsibilities.
21. The resident said the landlord refused responsibility for damage to her flooring and belongings. There is no evidence the landlord signposted her to its insurer, which it should have done. While determining liability is outside our remit, the lack of clear advice contributed to the resident’s uncertainty and inconvenience.
22. The resident has told us she has experienced damp and mould in her property for the first time, which has caused her significant stress. She said she has lost earnings due to time taken off work to accommodate repairs, missed appointments and due to illness, which she said had caused issues with her employer.
23. In summary, the landlord significantly delayed remedial works, failed to maintain adequate records, did not manage or monitor repairs effectively, and communicated poorly with the resident throughout. It did not provide a clear plan for completing works, and its actions remained inconsistent after the complaint process concluded. These failings caused prolonged distress and inconvenience for the resident.
24. The landlord apologised for delays and communication issues at stage 2, which was appropriate. However, it did not offer compensation or propose any specific plan for progressing the works. While the landlord acknowledged failures through its complaint responses, it did not identify the full extent of these failures. It did not go far enough in its attempt to put things right in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, which requires landlords to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
25. Given the scale and duration of the delays, the resident’s time and trouble in chasing repairs, the missed appointments, and the lack of clarity about insurance matters, the landlord should have offered financial redress in line with its policy.
26. Therefore, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak, damp and mould repairs.
27. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy and in consideration of our remedies guidance, to reflect the extent of the detriment to the resident, we order the landlord to apologise and pay compensation amounting to £750, made up as follows:
    1. £550 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the unreasonable delay in remedial works.
    2. £100 in line with the landlord’s policy in recognition of missed appointments in line with the landlord’s policy
    3. £50 to reflect the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the repairs.
    4. £50 for its failure to demonstrate it provided clear advice to the resident about its disrepair liability claims and remit.
28. We note following the landlord’s final complaint response, the resident asked the landlord to reimburse her electricity costs for running a dehumidifier. The records show the landlord asked the resident to provide evidence of costs so it could process her request. If it has not already done so, we recommend the landlord addresses the resident’s request.
29. The resident has told us the landlord had committed to carry out an inspection on 5 February 2026 to assess damage caused by the new leak. We expect the landlord has now completed the inspection. As part of good practice, we would expect the landlord to share its result with the resident. We would also expect the landlord to maintain accurate records to reflect the results so that it can progress works accordingly.
30. We wrote to the landlord on 4 February 2026 giving it notice that this could be a hazard (or material change) under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. This requires the landlord to consider if Awaab’s law applies and assess if the damp and mould could be a potential significant or emergency hazard. The landlord should then consider what steps it should take.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

31. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints at stage 1 and stage 2 within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the Code’s timescales.
32. When the resident made her complaint, the landlord’s previous complaints policy was in effect. This set out a 2-stage complaint process, which required its stage 1 (local resolution) response within 20 working days and its stage 2 (final review) response within 25 working days, respectively. At each stage, it allowed an extension of up to 20 working days with prior notice and explanation for the delay.
33. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 8 days outside of its expected timescale. It acknowledged the delay and apologised to the resident. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint in 19 working days which was well within its expected timescale which was positive.
34. The landlord’s policy does set out that it will acknowledge a complaint in 2 working days unless it cannot give a full response, in which case it does not need to send an acknowledgment. We note it issued its stage 1 acknowledgment in time, but it did not issue its stage 2 acknowledgement until 8 working days after the resident requested a complaint escalation. However, we accept its policy at the given time allowed for discretion regarding the sending of an acknowledgment, and we note the final complaint response was subsequently provided 7 days earlier than its expected timescale.
35. We therefore consider an apology for its initial complaint handling delay at stage 1 provided sufficient redress.

 

Learning

General learning

36. The evidence shows the landlord asked its operatives to carry out repair work in relation to the renewal of flooring that its operatives advised it could not do. This led to conflicting communications with the resident about the scope of works. It is good practice for landlords to provide clear instructions to its contractors about works and to ensure it understands the remit of its operatives. The landlord should ensure it addresses and resolves issues about the scope of works required and evidence it has done so.

 

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. This resulted in delays in its responses, uncertainty about planned works and vague complaint responses which added to the resident’s frustration. The landlord was also unable to evidence its actions which is concerning. Landlords should ensure they have effective policies, processes and systems in place to record and store accurate data to include records of repair reports, inspections, and work orders. This will enable the landlord to raise works correctly without the need to seek clarification or delay work being progressed. This will be vital to evidence its Awaab’s Law obligations.

 

Communication

38. The overall communication with the resident was poor. There was ambiguity in relation to the scope of works, and the landlord did not routinely update the resident about what it planned to do and when. Our Spotlight report ‘Repairing Trust’ highlights improved communication is central to resolving repair issues and trust in the resident-landlord relationship.