London Borough of Lambeth (202440922)

Background

1. The resident reported an issue with water coming through her window and this was causing damp in her property. After attending the resident’s home, the landlord raised works to seal the window and complete some repointing work to the external areas outside the window. Some of this work remained outstanding. At the time of the complaint the resident was recovering from chemotherapy.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. repointing repair and water ingress through the resident’s window
   2. resident’s complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of:
   1. the repointing repair and water ingress through the resident’s window
   2. the resident’s complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Repointing repair work and water ingress

4. The landlord failed to take ownership of the repair, to progress it within policy timescales, or to see it through to completion. It did not keep the resident informed, failed to explain key processes, allowed extended periods of inactivity, and raised duplicate work rather than resolving the issue. The landlord also did not follow its repairs manual by failing to prioritise the repair or consider the resident’s reported vulnerabilities, and there is no evidence it learned from the complaint despite assurances given.

 Complaint handling

5. The landlord’s failed to follow its own complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code. It did not acknowledge complaints, missed response timescales, and failed to manage or explain delays.

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.

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 have not looked at

6. We would usually investigate actions of the landlord up to its stage 2 complaint response. However, in this case we have also looked at the landlord’s actions after the complaint process was exhausted. This is fair as the landlord committed to completing the relevant repairs in its stage 2 complaint response.
7. We have assessed the landlord’s actions up to November 2025. This is because the resident raised a new formal complaint in November 2025 about the ongoing repointing work, and penetrating damp and mould. This complaint has yet to exhaust the landlord’s complaint process. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response at the conclusion of the complaint process, she can refer this to us as a new case.

What we have looked at

8. The resident first reported water ingress through a window on 21 September 2023. The landlord attended on 9 October 2023 and confirmed follow‑on works to replace the windows and complete repointing. This initial response met its repair policy timescale, which requires routine repairs within 28 working days.
9. The resident chased the landlord 4 times between 3 November and 28 December 2023. On 28 December 2023, the landlord said it had issued a Section 20 notice to consult leaseholders about the repairs. While consultation was required under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord failed to keep the resident informed. It did not explain the Section 20 process or likely timescales. This was unreasonable and failed to follow its repair service standards. This says it will take responsibility to keep resident’s informed. By failing to do this the resident told us it caused her distress and inconvenience.
10. After raising a complaint, the resident chased at least 5 more times between January and August 2024 before escalating. Although internal records in May 2024 said the Section 20 had expired, there is no evidence the landlord updated the resident or progressed the repair. This was unreasonable and fell outside the 90‑day planned repair timescale, causing frustration and distress.
11. Between 2 and 9 September 2024 a contractor attended twice. On both occasions the resident had not been told about the appointments, and the evidence supports this. The landlord failed to communicate, adding to the resident’s distress and damaging the relationship.
12. Between 13 September and 15 November 2024 the landlord measured and fitted new windows but did not complete the repointing. It took the landlord over a year to replace the resident’s windows which was outside of its policy timescales.
13. The failure to complete the window repair quickly was especially significant given the landlord’s knowledge of the resident’s medical circumstances. She had told the landlord she had recently undergone chemotherapy and was worried the water coming through the windows was causing damp which could make her more vulnerable. The resident has told us that the time taken to replace the windows caused her some significant distress. She has also said she spent a lot of time and trouble chasing the landlord to ensure repairs were completed.
14. The resident continued to chase the repointing work on 26 November and 11 December 2024 without an update. By December 2024, 14 months had passed since the follow‑on work was raised, with no proactive communication. This lack of ownership of the repair and failure to follow its repair service standards caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
15. On 24 March 2025 the resident reported damp and outstanding repointing. The landlord inspected within 4 days, but the outcome again identified the need for repointing. 17 months after the work was first raised, the landlord opened a new job for the same issue. This was unreasonable and far outside its 90‑day planned repair timescale.
16. The resident chased again on 3 April 2025. On 15 April 2025, the landlord said scaffolding was needed. The resident then chased a further 8 times between 16 May and 15 September 2025 before scaffolding was erected. This was another failure to follow its repair policy and caused further upset.
17. The resident chased at least 4 more times between 19 September and 18 November 2025 before raising a new complaint. This prolonged delay had a significant impact on the resident.
18. Throughout the period, the resident told the landlord she had breathing difficulties and was concerned damp would worsen her health. She also said she had recently received chemotherapy and was vulnerable to illness. There is no evidence the landlord considered these vulnerabilities or prioritised the repair, as required by its repairs manual. This was a missed opportunity to reduce the impact on the resident.
19. The repair remains outstanding. The landlord recently attended on 5 February 2026 and was unable to complete the works. A new appointment has been booked for 20 February 2026. This means it will have been 29 months without completion. This is despite assurances in its stage 2 that it would learn from the complaint and improve its service. The continued delay shows no meaningful learning was undertaken and there was no improvement in its service.
20. Given the serious and ongoing impact, we have ordered the landlord to pay £1,500 compensation, inclusive of the £50 already offered. This is in line with its compensation policy for failings which have a major impact and our remedies guidance for serious, long‑term failings.

21. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. There is no evidence it acknowledged either complaint. It also failed to meet its response timescales, taking 35 working days at stage 1 and 26 working days at stage 2. This was not in line with its policy or the Complaint Handling Code.
22. The landlord did not request extensions or tell the resident its responses would be late. Its stage 2 response also failed to recognise the failures in its complaint handling. While this did not affect the outcome, it caused distress and inconvenience. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation, in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

 Learning

23. This case shows the need for stronger ownership of repairs and complaints from start to finish. The landlord allowed a routine repair to drift into a prolonged failure through delay, inaction, and a lack of escalation. Taking early responsibility, monitoring progress, and intervening when timescales are missed would reduce delay, limit resident impact, and prevent issues from escalating into formal complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. Accurate and complete record keeping supports effective service delivery and accountability. Clear records of decisions, actions, updates, and consideration of vulnerabilities would allow repairs to be progressed consistently and reviewed properly. Better records would also support learning, improve complaint handling, and demonstrate compliance with policies and service standards.

Communication

25. Clear, proactive communication is essential to maintaining trust, even when delays are unavoidable. Keeping residents informed about progress, timescales, and reasons for delay would manage expectations and reduce distress. Explaining processes, such as consultation requirements, and updating residents about appointments would improve transparency and help sustain a constructive landlord‑resident relationship.