London Borough of Lambeth (202332105)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332105

London Borough of Lambeth

26 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s requests for it to replace the bedroom windows.
    2. The resident’s reports of a leak into the property and the associated repairs.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and the landlord is the freeholder. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the top floor of a low-rise block. The resident has owned the property since 2006.
  2. The resident’s records show that he has reported leaks from the roof since 2009. He says the landlord completed temporary repairs in 2010, 2016, and 2019.
  3. The resident reported new issues with a roof leak and rotting window frames to the landlord in April 2022. He sought updates from it and contacted his local Councillor who wrote to the landlord on his behalf in August, September, and October 2022. His solicitor wrote to the landlord in November 2022 and started a disrepair claim for damp, mould, a leaking roof, and defective windows.
  4. As a result of the claim, an independent surveyor inspected the property in January 2023. The report highlighted damp caused by water coming through the roof. It said the rear bedroom window was beyond repair. It recommended that the landlord replace internal plaster where required and patch decorate the affected walls and ceilings. It also said the landlord needed to:
    1. Replace the roof felt.
    2. Replace the rear bedroom window.
    3. Add all external windows and frames to cyclical decoration.
  5. The resident’s solicitor wrote to the resident in May 2023. They said the landlord had agreed to complete the repairs listed in the surveyor’s report within 120 days. The landlord paid £3,500 for damages.
  6. The resident sought updates from the landlord in June 2023. The landlord said that it had passed the window renewal to a manufacturer, which it estimated would take 8-10 weeks from 22 June 2023. The landlord completed some repairs to the roof in September and October 2023. It also replaced the windows in the property in September 2023.
  7. The resident complained on 22 November 2023 because he was unhappy with the time taken to complete the repairs and the lack of updates. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 November 2023. It said that because there was an open disrepair case, it passed his complaint to its disrepair team for a response. It would not manage his repair through the complaints process.
  8. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked it to escalate his complaint on 14 and 15 December 2023. He said the disrepair case was no longer active and the landlord had not resolved the repairs in the agreed timescale.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 January 2024. It said that the roofing repairs were completed in 2023 and there were no outstanding repairs at the property. The resident replied to the landlord the same day. He disagreed with the landlord’s stage 2 response and said the repairs were outstanding. He noted he had met with the landlord’s contractor on 24 January 2024 who said it needed to complete further repairs to resolve the water ingress.
  10. On 31 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged that there were outstanding repairs. Between February and May 2024, the resident sought updates from the landlord. He wanted it to confirm the scope of the works and a repair plan for the roof. He said the landlord erected scaffolding at the property in September 2023 and had not taken it down or repaired the roof. He advised that water was still coming through his ceiling and the walls were damp. He felt the property was uninhabitable because water was gushing through in places and there had only been temporary repairs.
  11. The landlord began a section 20 consultation with the residents in the block on 17 May 2024. It listed works to repair the roof. It began the works to the tiled area of the roof on 10 June 2024 and marked the repair as complete on 10 July 2024.
  12. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman in July 2024. He says the landlord repaired the roof between June and July 2024. However, he complained that the landlord did not respond to his emails asking for confirmation that it had resolved the leak. He later paid for an independent survey to confirm the repairs were complete. The landlord did not complete any internal repairs once it repaired the roof.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has reported roof and window disrepair concerns to the landlord since 2009. We will not usually consider matters that were not raised as a formal complaint to the landlord within a reasonable period. For this reason, we have limited the scope of this investigation to matters raised from April 2022 onwards. This is the point that the resident brought his most recent concerns to the landlord’s attention.
  2. The Ombudsman has conducted further investigations beyond the initial complaint in this case. This is because the landlord did not fully address the resident’s complaint at stage 2 and the substantive issues remained unresolved.
  3. The resident explained to the Ombudsman that he sublets the property to tenants. He says that the leaks have at times made the property uninhabitable. He says that he has lost tenants and rent revenue because of the leaks into the property. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider if the resident experienced a loss of earnings because of the leaks. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a liability claim.

Policies and procedures

  1. The first schedule of the lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the repair/maintenance of all structured parts of the property. This includes the roof and external windows. The resident is responsible for the internal ceilings and interior plastered coverings and other surfaces.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that, in some circumstances, it may deal with complaints through other channels than its complaint process. These include cases where legal proceedings have started which relate to the complaint. If it does consider a complaint to be outside the remit of its complaint process, it will say why and how the resident may dispute its decision.

Requests to replace the bedroom windows

  1. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. Landlords must make sure the property is fit for human habitation. Landlords must look at the condition of their properties. They must use a risk assessment approach under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). These do not set out any minimum standards but are concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards.
  2. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. They are expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where they identify potential hazards. Landlords should inspect within their repairs timescales. They should use a resident’s report and the individual circumstances of the household to triage the case effectively.
  3. The resident reported the window frame was rotten in 2 bedrooms on 26 April 2022. He frequently sought updates from the landlord in 2022 and 2023. The lack of communication from the landlord caused the resident additional time and trouble as he sought help from his Councillor and a solicitor in 2022.
  4. The resident highlighted concerns that the windows were in an unsafe condition and he was concerned that the windowpane may fall from the frame. The surveyor later echoed these concerns in their January 2023 report. This highlighted that the window frames were generally in a poor condition.
  5. The surveyor noted that the rear bedroom window was decayed beyond repair and there was a risk the glazing could fall. The landlord should have acted urgently to mitigate any risk of the glazing falling from the property. Instead, it took until June 2023 to issue works to a contractor to replace the window frames. This was nearly 6 months after the survey and was an unreasonable delay by the landlord in the circumstances.
  6. The landlord informed the resident that there was a lead time of 10-12 weeks for it to have the frames made in June 2023. It is understandable that sometimes parts are not readily available or that other preparation works may need to be scheduled. It was reasonable for the landlord to be clear with the resident about these timescales. Its records show that it marked the repairs as complete on 25 September 2023. This was within the 12 weeks lead time from June 2023.
  7. The landlord delayed unreasonably in addressing the window renewals between April 2022 and September 2023 (some of this was inevitable given the window manufacture time). This was even after safety hazards were identified. However, the Ombudsman finds that there was a reasonable offer of redress made by the landlord.
  8. The landlord made a Part 36 offer to settle the resident’s disrepair claim in May 2023. This offer included an agreement to complete the repairs listed in the January 2023 survey report by September 2023. The resident accepted this offer from the landlord. He was legally represented at the time and we can assume he was given competent legal advice about the offer made.
  9. The landlord awarded a total of £3,500 compensation according to the solicitor’s documentation and landlord records. Even taking into consideration that this related to both roof and window maintenance failings, this was a significant level of compensation. This is in a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there was a seriously detrimental impact on a resident over a lengthy period of time. Given this proportionate level of compensation and that the landlord resolved the window condition in September 2023 (in line with the Part 36 offer), we have concluded that it offered redress to the resident, prior to investigation, which resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Leak into the property and the associated repairs

  1. The landlord has not disputed that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the roof. The recommendations made within the surveyor’s report in January 2023 included making good internal damage following the repair. It is unclear from the landlord’s communication with the resident if it accepted any responsibility for putting right any internal damage resulting from the leak.
  2. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s roof leak report in April 2022 was poor. Its records show that it recorded the leak on 26 April 2022 but took no action in April or May 2022. The resident’s emails to the landlord in October 2022 show that a contractor attended some time in June 2022 and that water was still leaking into his bedrooms. He says that he called several times and received no information about the repair. In August 2022, he chose to seek assistance from his local Councillor. They wrote to the landlord on his behalf in August and October 2022. It is clear from the records available that the lack of communication caused the resident considerable time and trouble in 2022.
  3. The survey report from January 2023 identified several faults with the condition of the roof. Its recommendations to the landlord were clear, including scaffolding, stripping and re-felting. The landlord appropriately directed these reports to its specialist disrepair team. In the letters from the solicitor to the resident in May 2023, they state that the landlord agreed to complete the repairs by 14 September 2023 (or 120 days). They also say that the landlord offered £3,500 to settle the claim. It is not unreasonable to expect complex roofing repairs to take 120 days to complete. Had the landlord followed through with its commitments, we may have considered that this, alongside its offer of £3,500, was a reasonable offer of redress.
  4. However, the landlord’s failings in the management of roof repairs continued well beyond this. Its records are unclear about what works were completed, and when, between September and November 2023. There are internal emails that say its contractor completed pointing and lead flashing repairs on 13 November 2023. They also show the resident was unhappy with the quality of the repair on 16 and 28 November 2023. The landlord was not clear in its communication with the resident during this period. It did not confirm what works it had done, or what was outstanding, and this caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing his complaints.
  5. The landlord chose not to consider the resident’s concerns as a complaint when responding to him on 28 November 2023. The landlord should have used the opportunity to clarify its position regarding the repair. It did not and this was a failing. This caused the resident further time and trouble as he pursued his complaint and sought updates from the landlord in December 2023.
  6. The email exchanges between the resident and landlord on 15 December 2023 are further evidence of the time and trouble the poor communication caused him. The resident explained that his disrepair case was no longer active and the landlord had not met their obligations by the due date. The landlord chose to reiterate its decision not to respond to his complaint at stage 1 and direct him back to his legal representatives. The residentsays the landlord’s disrepair team had not contacted him and the email address the landlord gave him did not work.
  7. The resident told the Ombudsman that, following communication from the landlord, he accepted that it had repaired the roof. He therefore chose to decorate the inside of the property in January 2024. He paid decorators £3,850 at the time. Shortly afterwards, the roof leaked again and he says this ruined the decorations. The landlord should have ensured that it completed the works satisfactorily in September/November 2023. If these were only temporary repairs, it should have told the resident this so he could make informed decisions about the internal decorations. The poor communication and lack of oversight likely caused the resident additional financial hardship and distress and inconvenience.
  8. The landlord did not use its stage 2 response on 25 January 2024 to effectively resolve any of the resident’s concerns. Its response was not proactive or resolution focussed. It did not use the opportunity to agree a date that its disrepair team would contact him, or any contact plan to resolve the repairs.
  9. Instead, it was dismissive and only stated that the works were complete and there were no outstanding repairs at the property. It did not demonstrate that it had considered if the repairs in 2023 were temporary or permanent repairs. It did not address any of the concerns raised about damage to the inside of the property, or the considerable costs incurred by the resident. It should have directed the resident to its liability insurer for him to pursue a claim for his damages. It did not consider the resident’s time and trouble, or the distress and inconvenience any delays caused him.
  10. The landlord’s poor communication did not improve following its stage 2 complaint response. The records show that its contractor visited the property on 25 January 2024. The contractor recommended that it replace the roof in emails on the same day. The landlord’s records show that both the resident and contractor chased it for a decision and updates in February and April 2024. He asked the landlord for updates 4 times in February 2024 before it replied on 5 March 2024. The landlord gave no information on how it was progressing the repairs, or its plan to resolve the leaks until 28 March 2024. This was an unreasonable delay and further contributed to the resident’s time and trouble.
  11. The leak remained unresolved until repairs began on 10 June 2024. In the intervening months, the resident repeatedly asked the landlord how it planned to repair the roof and for a timeline. His emails show that he became increasingly frustrated and anxious over his additional financial burden as the repairs were unresolved in May 2024. He rightly raised concerns that scaffolding had been in place from September 2023. He also highlighted that his internal walls were damp and damaged by the leaks. This evidenced some of the distress and inconvenience the delays caused the resident.
  12. The resident emailed the landlord on 16 May 2024 and thanked it for inspecting the property. He said that the inspection found damp readings throughout. The landlord has not provided a copy of this inspection report in its evidence to the Ombudsman. There was no record showing any agreement by the landlord to complete any follow up inspection or repairs to the property.
  13. The landlord issued a section 20 form to the resident on 17 May 2024 to complete works to the roof. It listed the total costs of the repairs as £13,431.57. The resident sought confirmation that the full works were complete in emails to the landlord on 11 June 2024. There was no evidence available to the Ombudsman that show the landlord responded to this enquiry or confirmed if the full scope of works were complete. This was a failing and caused the resident additional uncertainty, distress and inconvenience.
  14. The resident highlighted damages caused to the internal plaster by the delays addressing the roof leak on 18 June 2024 and asked the landlord to remedy these damages. The landlord responded the same day and agreed to inspect the property once the works were complete. There was no evidence available to the Ombudsman that it followed through with this inspection. When discussing this case with the resident, he said that the landlord did not return to conduct any internal inspection and he had to pay independently to make good the damaged plaster and decoration.
  15. The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its repairs works. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord regarding the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that it had completed the repair work to a satisfactory standard. In this case, the landlord’s record keeping was poor. It was unable to show if, or how, it had satisfied itself that it completed the roof repairs to a satisfactory standard in November 2023. This was particularly concerning given the overall duration that works were outstanding and the involvement of local Councillors and the resident’s solicitors in highlighting the disrepair.
  16. As a leaseholder, the resident is liable to pay towards the costs of building repairs. The landlord’s failure to have proper oversight of the works and its contractors allowed the repairs to drift, leaving the resident uncertain whether the landlord was achieving value for money in the handling of the roofing works.
  17. In total, the landlord took around 18 months to complete the repairs to the roof following the survey in January 2023. The survey in January 2023 recommended that the landlord replace internal plaster where required and patch decorate the affected walls and ceilings. The resident reported damage done to his ceiling during the remedial works in June/July 2024. The landlord should have followed through with its inspection once it had completed the repairs and decided if it would make good any damage done internally. It did not and this was also a failing.
  18. The resident has shown that he paid around £10,000 in painting and decorating because of the leak between 2024 and 2025. This included repairing damaged plaster throughout. He has spent around £1,180 on dehumidifiers between 2024 and 2025. He has spent around £1,700 in additional inspections and other cleaning costs.
  19. The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and the associated repairs. There were a series of significant failures which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord’s poor communication and lack of ownership of these issues in its complaint response undermined the landlord/tenant relationship. The landlord repeatedly failed to provide a good service. It was unable to show that it had satisfied itself that it completed the repair to a satisfactory standard, despite frequent requests from the resident to do so. It did not demonstrate sufficient actions to put things right even after the £3,500 settlement offer in May 2023.
  20. The landlord did not show that it took the resident’s reports seriously, or that it considered the continued distress and inconvenience caused between 2023 and 2024. Its responses were often unfairly dismissive and lacked a clear understanding of the overall problem, the time it had been ongoing, or the impact on the resident. It did not follow through with some of the recommendations set out in the survey from January 2023.
  21. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £1,000 in compensation for its failures in this case. None of this compensation is for damages, disrepair, or fitness for human habitation. It is only awarded for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the leak into the property and associated repairs.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s policy states that it will record an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint promptly, within the 5 working days timescale listed in its complaint handling policy. However, it unfairly dismissed his complaint. The resident had ended his disrepair action when he settled his claim in May 2023.
  3. The resident can follow alternative dispute resolution avenues, such as the landlord’s internal complaints process, rather than pursue his claim to court. Even though the landlord received correspondence initiating the protocol it should not disengage from the internal complaint procedure. Commencing the pre action protocol does not constitute legal proceedings and he can pursue alternative dispute resolution at any stage of the protocol. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the matter does not become ‘legal’ until proceedings have been issued. The landlord should have discussed his complaint internally with its disrepair team before responding. It did not and this caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing his complaints.
  4. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request to escalate his complaint at stage 2 within its timescales. The resident sought to escalate his complaint on 14 December 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 27 working days later, on 25 January 2024. This was around 7 working days outside its 20 working days timescale. The landlord did not address this delay or consider if its earlier decision at stage 1 was reasonable.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response was inadequate and did not demonstrate that there was a thorough investigation into the substantive issues. It did not consider its handling of the repairs since it settled the claim and failed to use the complaint as an opportunity to confirm what repairs it had done. It also contradicted itself about whether it needed to complete more roof repairs the same week as the stage 2 response.
  6. The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint. The landlord unfairly dismissed the resident’s complaint at stage 1. It also did not address the delay in issuing its stage 2 response. The landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation for his time and trouble pursuing the complaints.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress made by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for it to replace the bedroom windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and the associated repairs.
    2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £1,150 compensation (this is in addition to the £3,500 offered in May 2023 which should also be paid if it has not already been). This is comprised of:
      1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his reports of a leak into the property and the associated repairs.
      2. £150 for his time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
    3. Write to the resident and confirm the amounts he will be liable to pay for the repairs to the roof.
    4. Consider the resident’s additional costs incurred because of the damage caused by the leaking roof. It should confirm to the resident if it is willing to reimburse him for any damages or provide him with the details for its liability insurer.
  2. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must conduct a case review by a director independent of the services involved in this complaint. It should consider whether previous learning actions are sufficient to prevent similar failings in future. It should particularly consider its approach to complaints where there is a disrepair claim (that is not yet subject to legal proceedings) and how it communicates with residents during complex repairs. A copy of this review must be shared with the Ombudsman.