London Borough of Lambeth (202530163)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with her 3 grown up children. She and one of her children live with mental health vulnerabilities. The resident told the landlord that there was a leak in her bathroom that was affecting her flat and the flat below. The repairs to resolve the issue remain outstanding.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. We found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

6. The landlord did not investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould in line with its legal duties, policies or procedures. There were significant delays and poor communication throughout the case. In addition, the landlord failed to put things right for the resident.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its published timescales. It also did not appropriately investigate the complaint or recognise the shortcomings in its handling of the damp and mould.

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.

8. On 30 October 2024, the resident told the landlord that there was a constant leak coming through the tiles when she used the shower. The leak was causing damp and mould in the bathroom and on a wall in the living room.
9. The landlord’s records do not show what action it took after becoming aware of the issue. Which indicates poor record keeping.
10. There is a record for the 29 November 2024, which states that the landlord contacted the resident to re-arrange a plastering appointment. And another to show it conducted a mould wash on 21 January 2025. Both the defective plaster and the mould are symptoms of a leak, not the cause. The landlord was aware that the defective tiles were the cause of the leak. Arranging appointments to address the symptoms before repairing the cause, indicates a fundamental failure to accurately assess the issue and plan the works appropriately.
11. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure of the property. This responsibility is confirmed in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
12. On 21 March 2025, 5 months after reporting the issue, the resident contacted the landlord again asking that it inspect and assess the damp and mould affecting the property. The landlord’s damp charter states that it will quickly diagnose dampness in residents homes and provide an action plan within 3 days. Its damp and mould policy states it will conduct routine repairs within 28 days. The landlord failed to comply with both policies.
13. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend on 8 April 2025. The records indicate that nobody attended. It booked a further inspection for 20 June 2025, but there are no records to show it went ahead. Given the delays already experienced this would have likely caused the resident significant frustration.
14. The resident reported that a surveyor inspected the property on 9 July 2025. Again, there are no records of this visit to show what the surveyor inspected or what the findings were. This indicates ongoing issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
15. The resident pursued the landlord for an update on the works on 11 and 14 July 2025 and 1 August 2025. There is no evidence the landlord responded. It contacted her on 21 August 2025 to arrange an asbestos check. The resident told the landlord that it had completed the asbestos check on 9 July 2025. She said the call demonstrated a clear breakdown in communication between departments.
16. The resident raised her complaint with the landlord on 27 August 2025. 2 days later, on 29 August 2025, the landlord raised work orders to conduct an asbestos check, mould wash (which it had already completed) and to remedy the leak. However, the records show that 5 more emails were sent before the orders were raised on 24 October 2025. The landlord’s internal communication was poor as was its communication with both the resident and its contractors.
17. On 2 November 2025, the resident told the landlord that she was having to regularly clean the mould from her bathroom ceiling and living room wall. Under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025, the landlord should have assessed the resident’s report to determine if a significant or emergency hazard may have existed. It should have decided whether to complete an emergency investigation and make safe works within 24 hours, or standard investigation (within 10 working days). It should then have recorded its decision. However, its visit on 1 December 2025 exceeded the required timescales which was a failure to identify that Awaab’s law could have applied and to comply with the relevant timescales.
18. We are only aware of the inspection that took place on 1 December 2025 because the resident raised it in an email with the landlord. It does not appear in the landlord’s records. The resident advised that the operative informed her that the leak was associated with the bathroom tiles, which would have to be replaced. Under the above regulations the landlord must conduct non-urgent preventative works within 5 working days. It must then begin any follow on works within 5 working days and complete the works within 12 weeks. This did not happen. The landlord failed to comply with its legal duties.
19. The landlord told the resident that the work would be completed on 23 December 2025. However, another plumber turned up on that day expecting to fix a leak, not to carryout tiling works. The resident reports that she found this extremely frustrating. She said the operative called their manager who informed them that no tiling works had been approved. The resident then called the landlord. It told her the works would have to be reassessed and approved, which would take 10 days. This ongoing confusion shows that there was a complete breakdown in communication between departments to co-ordinate the repairs. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience as well as time and trouble pursuing the landlord.
20. The resident told us that she had continued to call the landlord for updates but that it did not provide her with any information. She said every time she called, she had to explain her situation all over again, which she found “frustrating and unfair”.
21. 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 and her family were left exposed to damp and mould 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.
22. The landlord’s damp and mould charter states that it is important for damp and mould to be addressed with urgency where residents are living with mental health conditions. The resident made clear on several occasions that both her and one of her children lived with mental health vulnerabilities. Despite this, the landlord has failed to show that it considered this important aspect and took the appropriate action.
23. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it did not offer any compensation. This is contrary to its own compensation policy, which allows compensation to be paid where there has been an adverse impact on a resident. When investigating a complaint, we apply our Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case the landlord has not addressed any of the three principles.
24. Considering the failings identified we have made an award of £1,000 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been serious failings by the landlord that have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.

25. 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. It states it will notify the resident of any delays. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
26. The resident raised her complaint on 27 August 2025, which the landlord acknowledged on 4 September 2025. In the acknowledgement it said it would provide a response by 25 September 2025. The resident pursued the landlord on 2 occasions advising she had not received the response. It did not respond, which was unreasonable and likely frustrating for the resident.
27. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 October 2025, 28 working days outside the required timescales. The landlord did not notify the resident of the delay. This was a failure to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code.
28. The landlord told the resident it did not uphold the complaint because it had raised work orders to address the issues. However, it only raised the work orders after she had complained. Further, there is no indication it undertook an investigation into the resident’s complaint surrounding the delays and communication failures. The landlord’s decision to not uphold the complaint was wrong and contrary to the evidence and the experience of the resident.
29. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 November 2025. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation request. On 28 November 2025, she contacted us for assistance. On 1 December 2025, she told the landlord she had not received her stage 2 response. The landlord responded on 3 December 2025, it said it would provide the response on 5 December 2025 but did not.
30. We contacted the landlord on 10 December 2025 asking that it provide its complaint response to the resident. It provided the stage 2 complaint response on 11 December 2025, which exceeded the required timescales. The landlord again did not notify the resident of the delay or provide an explanation for it.
31. In the response the landlord partially upheld the complaint because of the “unacceptable” communication the resident had experienced. However, again, there was a lack of investigation evident in the stage 2 response. There were clear breaches of its own policies and procedures as well as a failure to comply with its legal duties, but the landlord did not recognise or acknowledge these failures. This was despite the resident’s specific request for such an investigation when she escalated her complaint. We again find the landlord’s decision not to uphold the resident’s complaint wrong and unfair.
32. The landlord demonstrated an ongoing failure to learn from its mistakes. It did not offer any compensation for the delays and errors associated with its complaint handling. We have therefore made an award of £200 compensation, which is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure by the landlord that adversely affected the resident.

Learning

33. The landlord did not pay the resident compensation as part of its complaints process. This would likely have left the resident feeling that it had treated her unfairly. The landlord should consider how it identifies the need for compensation to avoid such decisions in the future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord’s record keeping was poor in this case. It was unclear why repairs did not go ahead as planned and there was a general absence of inspection records and notes regarding cancelled inspections. Such records help us assess if a landlords actions were appropriate. The landlord should learn from this complaint and identify the action it needs to take to ensure it does not repeat the identified record keeping failures.

Communication

35. 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 to update her regarding the repairs and did not respond to several of her calls. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system, and the landlord must consider how it can improve its communication with residents.