London Borough of Lambeth (202424377)

Background

1. The resident has vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord. In May 2024, the resident notified the landlord that her neighbour had encroached onto her property by taking part of her garden.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of restricted access to her garden.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s:
   1. Reports of restricted access to her garden.
   2. Formal complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We found that the landlord:
   1. Unreasonably delayed responding to the residents reports of restricted access to her garden, failed to offer appropriate redress and did not evidence or explain its reasoning for not carrying out the further inspection the resident had reasonably requested.
   2. Repeatedly failed to follow its complaints policy, including not issuing acknowledgements, not communicating extensions, not addressing concerns raised at escalation and not reviewing its complaint handling.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us she was unhappy that the landlord had not consulted her about the land sale in 1999, which she only became aware of in 2024 when her neighbour installed the fence. We acknowledge her concerns. However, we have seen no evidence that she raised this issue within her initial complaint or escalation request. We have no power to investigate matters which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.
7. As explained earlier, the resident said her desired outcome was for the landlord to reinstate the garden to its original boundaries. While we cannot direct a landlord on how it manages its housing stock, we can assess whether it dealt with the resident’s concerns appropriately.

What we did investigate

8. The resident first reported that her neighbour had encroached onto her garden on 28 May 2024, and the landlord appropriately forwarded her concerns to the relevant staff member the same day. 10 working days later, on 12 June 2024, the resident advised that she had not received a response and requested the staff member’s direct telephone number, which the landlord provided the same day. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the resident had made further contact, but there is no evidence that the landlord responded to her original concerns, leading her to raise a complaint on 17 June 2024.
9. Between 21 June 2024 and 4 July 2024, the landlord obtained copies of the property’s lease plan and reviewed and discussed the boundaries internally. Nothing seen in this investigation suggested that it reached any unreasonable conclusions and its position (within its stage 1 response on 5 July 2024) that the resident’s neighbour was entitled to fence off their own land, was based on the evidence available to it at the time.
10. The landlord’s customer standards (set out on its website) state that it aims “to resolve queries at the first point of contact and keep [the customer] updated if it takes longer”. However, the absence of clear target timescales for such enquiries means it is not possible to determine precisely whether the landlord responded within expected timeframes. Despite this, landlords are expected to respond within a reasonable period, particularly where a resident reports that their housing situation is affecting their health. In this case, the lack of any substantive response to the resident’s concerns between 28 May 2024 and 5 July 2024 (28 working days) was unsatisfactory. It was therefore appropriate that within the landlord’s stage 1 response it apologised to the resident and partially upheld her complaint due poor communication during this period.
11. The landlord’s compensation policy says that when deciding if compensation is applicable to a complaint, it will consider the vulnerability of the affected household. Given that the resident had expressed how the substantive issue was negatively impacting her health, and despite the landlord acknowledging some service failures in its handling of the case, it was unreasonable that it failed to consider the guidance outlined in its compensation policy and offer the resident an appropriate amount of compensation. Its failure to do so was not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes).
12. Following the landlord’s offer to inspect the garden in its stage 1 response (on 5 July 2024), the resident confirmed the same day that she required a visit so that it could help clarify her garden boundaries. Although the landlord’s target timescales were not clear, attending the property 8 working days later, on 17 July 2024, was a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances. Other than taking photographs, the landlord did not provide a summary or report from this this visit but gave a retrospective summary within an internal email on 9 September 2024.
13. On 3 occasions between 23 and 25 July 2024, the resident alleged that following the inspection on 17 July 2024 the landlord had committed to arranging a follow-up survey for 20 July 2024, but no one attended. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, we are unable to make an assessment on this issue due to the absence of supporting documentary evidence. However, this matter will be further assessed within the complaint handling section of the report.
14. After the landlords alleged “failed” visit on 20 July 2024, the resident requested a further visit from it on 24 and 25 July 2024 so that it could confirm how she should “access [her] garden to dry clothes” and “access [her] part of the garden to sit or put out the laundry”, adding that she was “frail and any wrong footing can cause severe injury”. In these circumstances, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to provide evidence that it had considered the requests and undertaken a follow‑up visit, or that it had communicated a clear justification for refusing it.
15. In its stage 2 response on 9 September 2024, the landlord stated that it would arrange a further inspection for the resident. However, in an internal email the following day the landlord said it intended to issue a revised response to explain that “there was no need to carry out a further inspection”. It was unclear from the evidence provided whether this revised response was ever sent to the resident, or whether the landlord carried out any additional inspection. This was indicative of poor record keeping.
16. The resident told us in February 2026 that she had asked the landlord to inspect the garden on several occasions but had received no response. Due to the absence of documentary evidence, we are unable to make an assessment on this matter.
17. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident we have ordered the landlord to pay her compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

18. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, the landlord’s complaints policy states it will not exceed an additional 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which became statutory in April 2024.
19. The landlord failed to provide any evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaints process. This is at odds with its complaints policy that states “all complaints must be recorded on the system, including any accompanying notes and documentation”.
20. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 July 2024. This was an interval of 14 working days from the date the resident raised her complaint, and therefore within the target timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy.
21. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 25 July 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint on 9 September 2024. While an interval of 31 working days falls within the landlord’s maximum timescales (40 days) for responding to stage 2 complaints, we have seen no evidence that the landlord agreed with or informed the resident about an extension beyond the initial 20-day target.
22. In her escalation request the resident alleged that the landlord had failed to attend a follow-up inspection on 20 July 2024. We note that the landlord disputed the resident’s claims within an internal email dated 9 September 2024. However, its failure to communicate directly with her about this matter or provide a response to her concerns within its stage 2 response was inappropriate.
23. We have seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident at either stage of its complaint process to introduce its complaint handlers, or to discuss her complaint and the outcomes sought. The Code states that at each stage of the complaints process, complaint handlers must give the resident a fair chance to set out their position.
24. The landlord’s compensation policy states that when a service failure has been identified, it “should provide an explanation of the action being taken to prevent a recurrence of the problem.” Its complaints policy similarly notes that, where it is at fault, it “needs to put things right and prevent the same mistake happening again.” Although the landlord recognised shortcomings in its communication with the resident during its handling of the substantive issue, there is no evidence that it set out any steps to prevent a recurrence. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to reflect on the failures identified and demonstrate learning from the resident’s complaint.
25. A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to also review its handling of the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, the landlord did not assess its complaint handling, which meant it missed an opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the failures highlighted by this investigation.
26. For the reasons outlined above we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident we have ordered the landlord to pay her compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

27. The landlord should assess its own complaint handling as part of a complaint investigation, ensuring appropriate redress is offered where any failings are identified.
28. We reviewed the landlord’s internal emails (from 9 September 2024), which show that it had raised concerns about delays in allocating stage 2 complaints. The landlord should ensure it has sufficient resources and robust processes in place to allocate stage 2 complaints promptly and prevent similar delays in future.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

29. On several occasions the landlord’s record keeping was poor, which meant it could not evidence key actions. This undermined transparency and prevented a full assessment of events. The landlord should ensure it maintains accurate, contemporaneous records of all correspondence.

Communication

30. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout its handling of the case was poor and demonstrates the need for clearer and more proactive engagement. Effective communication plays a key role in an effective housing management and complaints process, and the landlord should reflect on how it can strengthen its approach when interacting with residents.