London Borough of Lambeth (202512673)

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 2006. She lives in the property, a 2-bedroom flat on the 10th floor of a block, with her child. The resident lives with chronic physical health conditions and both she and her child live with mental health conditions. In 2018 she began to tell the landlord about a water leak coming into her flat.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The time taken to resolve the leak was excessive and outside the requirements of the landlord’s policy. The delayed actions and poor communication led to significant distress and inconvenience for the resident, who was vulnerable.
6. The landlord did not provide an appropriate response to the resident’s complaint at stage 1, demonstrating a failure to conduct a thorough investigation. Further, it did not offer compensation despite recognising its failure throughout the repair process.

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 have not investigated

7. The resident told us that the situation had a detrimental impact on her own and her son’s physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this any further under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident has indicated that she has been reporting the same leak to the landlord since 2018. The records confirm the leak has been reported intermittently over the period. The fact that the leak was recurring is not disputed, but the evidence suggests that there were often gaps in reporting, most notably a period of 12 months between December 2023 and December 2024. As such, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions from December 2024 onwards. This is in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Scheme, which states that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period (usually 12 months from the matter arising).

What we have investigated

9. The landlord has a responsibility under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure of the property, as well as keeping in proper working order any fittings for the supply of water. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms this responsibility.
10. On 20 December 2024, the resident made an out of hours call to the landlord stating that she had an uncontainable leak from the flat above. The landlord allocated the job at 9:20pm on 22 December 2024 (a Sunday) and attended the same day. This indicates the landlord had classed the repair as urgent, but its subsequent response time exceeded its 24-hour target by one day, which was unreasonable and distressing for the resident.
11. The contractor who attended on 22 December 2024 observed the leak and advised that a “thorough investigation” of the flat above was required. However, the landlord’s records do not detail what action it took, which indicates poor record keeping.
12. Even though it was the Christmas period, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have conducted further investigations, but the records do not show that any such investigations took place. As a minimum it could have written to the resident outlining its plans. This would have provided her peace of mind that something was happening. Again, this did not happen, which was unfair and a failure to comply with the landlord’s damp charter. The charter states, “We will agree and write an action plan with you to resolve the damp, that will include timeframes.”
13. The resident contacted the landlord again on 30 December 2024 advising that the leak had come back. She said the water was coming through the cupboard into the kitchen. She advised that the cupboard was small, and that she was struggling to get a bucket into it to catch the water and was having to use towels. The resident reported that the leak was causing ongoing distress for her.
14. The landlord visited on 7 January 2025, 5 working days after the resident’s last report. It is difficult to know how the landlord classed the repair. We are therefore unable to comment on the suitability of the response period.
15. The operative who attended on 7 January 2025 recorded that there was no leak and that the only issue present was condensation. Further notes from the same day state that an operative visited the flat above and found that the neighbouring flat “was experiencing the same leak” as the resident. The operative also noted that the resident was having to use a dehumidifier, which she had to constantly empty due to the amount of moisture in the property.
16. On 7 January 2025, the landlord’s contractor asked for a surveyor to attend. After a further report on 3 February 2025, another operative attended. They noted that the leak was ongoing and asked for a surveyor to attend. From 20 December 2024 when the resident reported the leak – a period of 28 days – there is no evidence to show that the landlord took significant proactive steps to trace and remedy the leak. This was a failure to comply with its repairs policy.
17. It was also a failure to comply with the requirements of the landlord’s damp charter. In the charter it states it will arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 days.
18. The records indicate the landlord visited the flat above on 1 April 2025, and identified that tiles had come off the wall and that the bath needed resealing. This work was scheduled for 3 April 2025 but did not go ahead and was rearranged for 8 May 2025. Delaying the work for over a month was not appropriate given the impact on the resident and the ongoing distress and inconvenience she was suffering.
19. Having had no further updates from the landlord, the resident contacted it on 8 April 2025. The landlord then pursued the contractor for an update, who said “we will be in touch”. The fact that the landlord had to make enquiries with its contractor about the matter is evidence of poor record keeping. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have information readily available in its own repair logs so that it can clarify or follow up on aspects of a repair. Not doing so is evidence that the landlord did not appropriately record or closely monitor the work its contractors were doing at the resident’s property.
20. On 15 April 2025, the resident called the landlord to report a leak into her kitchen. She said the buckets she was using to catch the leak were filling in 20 minutes. The resident also advised that flats on the upper floors were affected. An operative visited on 16 April 2025 and determined that the leak was coming from a flat above, but that they were unable to gain access. This would indicate that work planners and operatives were not reviewing the records before conducting visits. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been pursuing the neighbour to have the required works conducted in a shorter timeframe.
21. While we are not considering the events before December 2024, the notes show that the suspected origin of the leak was from a property above the resident’s. Further, the inspection on 7 January 2025, mentioned earlier, stated that the flat above was experiencing the same leak. This indicates that each event was being looked at in isolation rather than a single person reviewing all events to determine a cause and produce a comprehensive action plan.
22. The result of this was that the leak continued even after the landlord conducted the regrouting and sealing works in the flat above on 8 May 2025. The resident reported further leaks on 26 and 30 June 2025, when she advised the water was running down the hall causing the “electrics to hiss”. An electrician visited the same day and found water running into the electric sockets in the kitchen. While the response time was appropriate and in line with the repairs policy, the landlord’s failure to fix the leak had caused a dangerous situation for the resident, which should not have occurred.
23. The electrician who visited on 30 June 2025 made a request for a plumber to attend and fix the leak and an electrician to follow on to restore the electrics. The resident told us that landlord left the sockets unconnected for a period of 4 months. This led to her having to run extension leads into her hall, which caused trips and falls. She said the sockets were only fixed when she pursued the landlord. This indicates that the landlord had not adequately risk assessed the situation and had left the resident dealing with additional hazards that created additional distress and inconvenience.
24. While it is not clear from the records, it appears the leak was fixed between August 2025 and September 2025, 8 to 9 months after the resident reported it on 20 December 2024. This significant timescale was unreasonable, even considering the need to access other properties to resolve the issue.
25. Our spotlight report on damp and mould outlines that “landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner”. It continues that “landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage residents’ expectations”. In this case, the resident was left exposed to damp and mould in her property for months because of the landlord’s inability to carry out necessary remedial works within a reasonable timescale. These were significant failings which showed a lack of regard for the household’s health concerns and the impact of damp and mould.
26. Throughout the period of the leak, the resident had to constantly pursue the landlord. She told us that if she did not contact it to find out what was happening, she would not have received any communication from it. Further, she said dealing with the landlord was “extremely annoying and stressful”. This is contrary to the requirements of its damp charter, where it says it will work in partnership with residents and communicate in a sympathetic way and stay in touch until work is completed.
27. As a result of our investigation, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak. We have also made an award of £700 compensation. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there has been a serious failure by the landlord that had a significant impact on the resident.

28. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
29. While the landlord has not shown it acknowledged the resident’s complaint, it provided its response within one working day. This timescale was appropriate. However, in delivering a quick response it is evident that the landlord failed to conduct a thorough investigation.
30. In the stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint about the ongoing leak. However, it then referred to a repair that had been arranged for a blocked sink. This was not the subject of the resident’s complaint. While some repairs had been carried out to the sink, the resident’s complaint was in relation to the leak coming from above. Failing to respond to the specific grounds of the complaint was frustrating for the resident.
31. Further, in concluding the stage 1 response the landlord said it upheld the resident’s complaint and had apologised. This was not correct, as the response did not contain an apology and nor have we seen any other evidence of an apology. Despite upholding the complaint and acknowledging failings, the landlord did not offer compensation, which was unreasonable.
32. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 April 2025. Again, the landlord has not shown it acknowledged the stage 2 complaint. It provided its response on 2 June 2025. This was 9 days outside of the 20-day timeframe required by the landlord’s policy and our Complaint Handling Code. Inappropriately, there is also no evidence the landlord notified the resident of the delay or recognised it in its complaint response.
33. In the stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delays in resolving the leak as well as the prolonged distress, inconvenience and disruption to the resident and her family. However, it again did not offer any compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy specifically allows compensation payments where it considers the above factors were due to a service failure. Not offering compensation (despite upholding the complaint) was unfair and would have been both frustrating and confusing for the resident.
34. The landlord’s complaint handling process did not operate as expected and failed to put things right for the resident. It also did not acknowledge the vulnerabilities in the household or apologise for the additional impact this would have had.
35. For the above reasons we have found maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made an award of £200 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord’s records surrounding the resident’s complaint were lacking. It is vital that landlords keep robust records of all events during the complaints process so that they can demonstrate they have responded appropriately and answered the specific complaint points raised.

Communication

37. The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. It needs to ensure that it has processes and procedures in place that enable effective and regular communication with its residents. In this case, the landlord failed to keep in regular contact with the resident, and as the evidence shows, its communication was mainly reactive. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.