London Borough of Lambeth (202505643)

Background

1. The resident reported that their toilet was broken and raised a complaint as they said the landlord had not completed the appropriate repairs. Both the resident and the resident’s husband contacted the landlord about these issues. We have referred to them both as ‘the resident’ in this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Toilet repairs.
   2. The complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Toilet repairs.
   2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of toilet repairs

4. The landlord did not complete the required repairs and delays caused the resident to pay privately to repair the toilet.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord was significantly late providing its stage 1 response. It failed to acknowledge the delay or offer proportionate compensation.

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.

6. The landlord has not provided any records of inspections, visits, or any repairs it carried out. This shows poor record keeping. Because of this, our investigation has relied mainly on the resident’s account and the landlord’s later complaint responses. The lack of clear records is a service failure, as it prevents a fair and transparent review of the landlord’s actions.
7. On 10 July 2024, the resident reported that their toilet was leaking. The landlord categorised this as a routine repair, which, according to its repairs policy, should be fixed within 7 days.
8. The landlord has provided no evidence to demonstrate that it attempted to contact the resident after the initial report, to assess the severity of the leak or whether the toilet was usable. Given that there was only one toilet in the property, it would have been reasonable and necessary for it to make enquiries.
9. If the toilet was not functional, the repair should have been recategorised as an emergency and fixed within one day. The absence of any evidence that it carried out such checks showed it failed to properly assess the urgency of the situation.
10. When the resident raised their complaint on 25 July 2024, they said that a contractor had attended the previous day but failed to repair the toilet. This visit took place 14 days after the problem was first reported. This was outside the landlord’s timescales, even for a routine repair. This delay showed poor management of the repair process.
11. In the complaint, the resident made it clear that the situation posed a significant risk to health. He told the landlord that his wife was terminally ill and that she had to use a bucket because the toilet was not working. This made it clear that the toilet was unusable and that the household had significant health-related vulnerabilities. This should have prompted immediate action but did not.
12. The landlord has a duty under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure that the property is free from hazards. Poor sanitation, including the risk of infection from a non‑functioning toilet, is classified as a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS guidance states that toilet systems must be properly installed and maintained, with a functioning flushing mechanism and effective drainage. Poor sanitation can lead to illness, and in this case the resident may have been particularly vulnerable due to her terminal diagnosis and the potential treatments she was undergoing. This heightened the seriousness of the situation and emphasised the need for the landlord to take prompt and appropriate action.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy said it would provide an “enhanced service” for vulnerable residents. However, there was no evidence that the landlord took any steps to re-categorise the repair as an emergency, prioritise attendance, or provide additional support. This shows a failure to consider the family’s vulnerability and the impact the situation was having on them.
14. On 9 August 2024, the resident reported that a second contractor had attended but still did not fix the toilet. Because of the landlord’s poor records, it is unclear exactly when this visit took place. As the household urgently required a working toilet and had been left without one for an extended period, the resident paid privately for a plumber, who successfully fixed the issue in one visit. This shows that the delays and inconvenience the household experienced could have been avoided had the landlord acted within its repair policy obligations.
15. In its stage 1 response on 25 September 2024, the landlord accepted that there had been a delay and said this was due to changing from one contractor to another. However, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure service levels are maintained, regardless of internal changes. The landlord’s ability to respond within its policy timescales should not have been impacted by any changes to the contractors being used.
16. At stage 1, it offered no compensation, despite its compensation policy allowing for payments in cases of an unjustified delay or failure to meet service timescales. This was a missed opportunity for it to properly recognise the distress the situation caused.
17. When the landlord responded at stage 2, it awarded £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delays. However, the resident said this payment was never made, even after asking for it several times. Because of this, the resident had to raise a further complaint on 6 March 2025. The failure to meet the commitments it made was unreasonable and added further distress and inconvenience to a household already dealing with significant personal trauma due to the resident’s health.
18. Based on the resident’s complaint history, the toilet was broken for at least 14 days, and then completely unusable for a further 2 days. The landlord failed to re-prioritise the repair, even after being explicitly told that the toilet could not be used. In the end, the resident had to arrange and pay for the repairs themselves. This is a clear failure by the landlord to provide an essential service and to meet its obligations.
19. The landlord also did not provide any evidence to show it had considered the additional vulnerabilities in the household or the impact its failings may have had on them.
20. For these reasons, the compensation previously offered by the landlord is not proportionate to the failures identified. Further compensation of £400 has therefore been ordered to align with our remedies guidance for cases where landlord failures have had an adverse effect on a resident.

21. The landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. Its definition of a complaint and its response timescales were compliant with our Complaint Handling Code.
22. The resident raised a complaint on 25 July 2024, and the landlord was due to respond by 8 August 2024. The resident emailed on 9 August 2024 with further information, and when no response was received, they chased the landlord on 11 September 2024. This caused unnecessary time and trouble for the resident.
23. The landlord did not respond until 25 September 2024. This was 43 working days after the complaint was raised and significantly outside the timeframes set out in its policy. It did not acknowledge or explain the reasons for the delay in its response. The delay was likely to have caused additional frustration for the resident as they sought a resolution to their complaint.
24. In their complaint, the resident asked the landlord for a refund for a toilet seat. This request was not acknowledged in the landlord’s response. Its failure to address the resident’s request or to set out its position is likely to have caused further distress and undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling.
25. The resident asked to escalate their complaint on 1 October 2024. The landlord responded 18 working days later, on 6 November 2024, in line with its policy.
26. The landlord was significantly late issuing its stage 1 response and did not acknowledge this failing or take steps to put things right. It also failed to address the resident’s specific request within its response. As a result, we have made a compensation order. The £100 awarded is in line with our remedies guidance for failures that have adversely affected the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s repair logs were confusing and difficult to interpret. The date the repair was raised was recorded as after the date the repair was completed making it difficult to comprehensively assess the repairs timeline. The landlord is encouraged to reflect on how to ensure its records are accurate and detailed. Taking into account the guidance we have published on knowledge and information management.

Communication

28. Aside from its complaint responses, the landlord has provided no evidence of any other communication with the resident. The landlord could consider how it could improve its communication, or how it records its communication, to improve the experience for residents in the future.