London Borough of Lambeth (202523277)

Decision
Case ID	202523277
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lambeth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	2 February 2026

Background

The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord following our determination of a previous complaint. The complaint was about an infestation, a transfer, raised flooring, outstanding repairs to the kitchen, damp, and mould. The resident also said there were outstanding repairs to the bathroom, passageway, skirting boards, internal doors, front gate, and front door. She said she had lived in disrepair since a leak from the property above in January 2023. She said she had not been able to use her kitchen since a leak in November 2024. She said the outstanding repairs, the inability to use her kitchen, and the landlord’s appointment process had affected her overall health.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of outstanding repairs, damp, and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of outstanding repairs, damp, and mould.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of outstanding repairs, damp, and mould

Although the landlord recognised the repairs were still outstanding, it did not acknowledge its failure to confirm repairs appointments, its communication failures, or its failure to raise work orders. It did not act in line with its repairs and damp policy or consider whether the property was habitable. There was no meaningful resolution to the complaint as the repairs remained outstanding with no plan of action in place.

Complaint handling

Overall, the landlord responded to the resident at both stages of the complaints process in line with its complaints policy.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 02 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident: £650 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of outstanding repairs, damp, and mould. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 02 March 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the whole of the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of the damp and mould Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 02 March 2026
4	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure it completes the recommended work from the survey promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 27 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 June 2025	The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about an infestation, a transfer, raised flooring, outstanding repairs to the kitchen, damp, and mould. She said she was unable to use the kitchen. She also said the bath panel, skirting boards, and doors were rotting. She said the front gate and front door needed replacing, the bath rail had been left outside since May 2024, the walls of the passage and bathroom were marked with plaster, and the light bulb in the passage was detached.
10 July 2025	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said: it had booked a damp and mould inspection for 15 July 2025 it would also assess the kitchen, bathroom, flooring, ceiling, gate, front door, and light fitting it had booked an appointment for 10 September 2025, to renew the kitchen ceiling damaged by a leak, following a no access visit on 7 July 2025 it had closed the works order to renew the front door, renew rotten internal doors, hack dry and make good plaster in living room, redecorate ceiling in hall, redecorate bathroom, renew bath panel, and renew bath rail following 3 attempts to complete the work. It asked the resident to raise a further repair request the resident should contact the pest control team to address the infestation issues (link provided)
16 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said the landlord did not inform her of the appointment on 7 July 2025. She said, since 4 May 2023, the landlord had completed no repairs. She said there had been a further leak, which the landlord inspected in November 2024 and again on 14 July 2025. She said she had completed a transfer application but she had been given conflicting information about the process. She said she had lived in disrepair since 7 January 2023 and had not had proper use of the kitchen since November 2024. She did not escalate the infestation aspect of the complaint to stage 2.
20 August 2025	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said: its repairs contractor had tried calling the resident before attending on 7 July 2025 but were unable to leave a voicemail message. They attended the property to see if they could gain access, and when they could not, they left a card with a revised appointment date of 10 September 2025 it would complete the outstanding repairs to the kitchen, bathroom, exposed light socket, bath rail left outside, plaster marks left on the bathroom walls, and water damage to the passage as part of the ongoing works programme it acknowledged the seriousness of the resident’s concerns that she had not been able to use the kitchen since November 2024 and the unfinished repairs its contractor had confirmed that they had arranged multiple appointments but had not been able to gain access. It had arranged to send the resident a letter confirming the attempts and to outline next steps it would confirm future appointments in writing, by email, where telephone contact was not successful its contractor would only attend in future where they had been able to confirm an appointment in advance, unless it was an emergency it had no record of the resident’s transfer application but she could apply via the link provided or consider the mutual exchange process it acknowledged the ongoing issues with outstanding repairs and it appreciated the impact on the resident. However, the repairs team had made multiple attempts to complete the works
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint in relation to the repairs. She did not refer the issues concerning her transfer application to us. She said she wanted a timeline for all the outstanding repairs to be completed with advance notice of the appointments.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to reports of outstanding repairs, damp, and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident told us that the outstanding repairs, particularly those relating to damp and mould, had affected her 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 have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident has raised concerns relating to repairs, damp, and mould reported to the landlord between 9 January 2023 and 16 July 2024. The landlord responded to these issues through an earlier formal complaint. The resident referred that complaint to us and we completed our investigation on 29 May 2025, under case reference 202424802. As such, this investigation will only consider repairs or issues reported to the landlord after 16 July 2024.

What we have investigated

The landlord raised a number of repairs following the resident’s previous complaint. It made an appointment to complete repairs to renew the resident’s front door and internal doors, hack dry and make good the plaster in the living room, redecorate the ceiling in the hall, redecorate the bathroom, renew the bath panel, and renew the bath rail for 30 July 2024. The landlord’s contractors were unable to gain access to complete the repairs. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord made the resident aware of the appointment before its contractors attempted access.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will give residents the option of an appointment at a time that best suits them, although it does not specify how it will do this. We would expect a landlord to agree a convenient date with the resident prior to the date of repair. Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, she is not obliged to provide access unless she has been given at least 24 hours’ notice in writing.
The landlord made an appointment to complete a mould wash throughout the property on 9 August 2024. It also made an appointment to make safe the resident’s gate on 30 August 2024. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided whether it gave the resident prior notice of the appointments and whether it completed either repair. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping practices.
The resident told us that the landlord completed an inspection of her property sometime in November 2024. The landlord has not provided us with any details of the survey and we have not seen a copy of the report. This again raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping practices. We would expect a landlord to have robust records of the actions it took for repairs, as this allows it to track what actions it has taken and what remains outstanding. Detailed records also allow the landlord to provide robust evidence when its actions are called into question.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 December 2024 by telephone. She said one of the repairs identified during the recent survey was the condition of the kitchen sink and worktop. She said they were “covered” in mould and a white substance. The landlord said it could not see a work order for the sink or worktop on its system. It noted that the resident said she could not use that area of her kitchen due to the state it was in. It said it would ask a colleague to check the survey report and raise a work order. It also said it would ask the surveyor to call the resident back. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord called the resident back or that it raised a work order relating to the sink or worktop.
This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs and damp policy which says it will prioritise the removal of mould with an initial wash and treatment to be carried out within 7 days of the report. It also says it will arrange to inspect and diagnose the issue within 28 days, or sooner in emergency situations, and agree an action plan to resolve the damp.
The landlord raised a repair on 6 February 2025 to renew the kitchen ceiling damaged by a leak from the property above. It booked the appointment for 27 March 2025. Following a change of appointment date by the landlord, which was not convenient for the resident, it rebooked the appointment for 7 April 2025. The appointment went ahead but the operative did not complete the work. The landlord rebooked the outstanding work for 7 July 2025. However, it did not confirm the new date with the resident as it was unable to leave a voicemail message.
This meant the resident had to chase the landlord on 10 April 2025 and 28 April 2025 for an update on her outstanding repairs. She told the landlord that, since the flood in January 2023, it had only completed a repair to the light in the bathroom and the plastering in the kitchen and passage. She said she felt like she was living in a building site, not a home. She said she could not prepare meals in her kitchen, which had caused stress and health issues. She said she did not feel safe in the property and she had asked the landlord to help her move. She asked the landlord to call her back on both occasions. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord called her back or that it made any contact in relation to the issues raised. This was unreasonable, particularly as the resident had informed the landlord that she could not use her kitchen.
Under s9A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) a landlord must ensure that its properties are fit for human habitation from the start of the tenancy and throughout the tenancy. Given the seriousness of the resident’s report, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete an inspection and assess the habitability of the property. Had it done so, it may have been able to reduce the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by completing the outstanding repairs.
The landlord’s records show that its contractors attended the resident’s property on 7 July 2025 to complete the repairs to the kitchen ceiling but could not gain access. However, the notes also say that its contractors completed an inspection of the ceiling and that it had booked the follow on repair work for 10 September 2025. This is confusing and contradictory and raises further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 15 July 2025 following the determination of case reference 202424802. We do not have a copy of the full survey and it is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord found any mould in the property. The landlord sent an email to the resident confirming that the surveyor had identified numerous repairs relating to the external condition of the property, the chimney breast, ceilings, and front door. It did not provide the resident with a schedule or confirm when it would complete the repairs.
On 4 August 2025 the landlord booked an appointment for a carpenter and a roofer to complete the repairs to the front gate, brickwork, and to renew the front door and frame for 7 August 2025. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 August 2025 and asked it to reschedule the roofer. The landlord said it would call her back to rebook the repairs. However, there is no evidence to show that it did this.
In its stage 2 response the landlord appropriately acknowledged that the repairs were still outstanding and it recognised the serious concerns relating to the resident’s kitchen. However, it did not acknowledge or recognise its failure to confirm repairs appointments, its communication failures, or its failure to raise work orders. It did not recognise that it had failed to act in line with its repairs and damp policy or that it had not considered whether the property was in a habitable condition. In addition, there was no meaningful resolution to the complaint as the repairs remained outstanding with no plan of action in place.
The landlord has not shown that it put things right through the complaints process. On that basis, we find that there has been maladministration. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £650 compensation to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. We have made further orders in relation to the outstanding repairs.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 20 June 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 June 2025 and sent the resident a stage 1 response on 10 July 2025. Both the acknowledgement and the response were within the timeframes set within the landlord’s policy.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 on 16 July 2025. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 24 July 2025. This was just outside of the 5 working days set within the landlord’s policy. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 20 August 2025. Although there was a slight delay with the acknowledgement, overall, the stage 2 response was issued within the relevant timeframe. Therefore, we find that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord should ensure that it has adequate processes in place to confirm repairs appointments with residents to avoid its contractors turning up unannounced. It should ensure that it responds to reports of damp and mould in line with its policy and consider the habitability of its properties when resident’s report serious concerns.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The repairs records were lacking in sufficient detail and there were gaps in the evidence provided. The landlord did not provide copies of key documents such as the survey reports. This affected our investigation somewhat.

Communication

The communication between the landlord and resident was poor at times. There were occasions when the resident contacted the landlord chasing repairs or asking for updates, yet there is no evidence that the landlord responded.