London Borough of Lambeth (202532113)

Decision
Case ID	202532113
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lambeth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	31 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident reported damp and mould in both bedrooms and defects to internal and external door frames. She also said there was a persistent leak from the pipes under the kitchen sink. The resident told the landlord in March 2025 that the condition of the property was affecting her breathing and her daughter’s eczema. The landlord has advised us that it has no other vulnerabilities listed on its system.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. Various outstanding repairs.
3. We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various outstanding repairs.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord did not arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property in 2023, it did not follow up recommendations to address the damp and mould made by its contractor and its communication with the resident was poor. Also, it did not use the complaints process to clarify the surveyor’s findings and the next steps in terms of the reported damp and mould.
8. The landlord delayed arranging a follow-up inspection of the plumbing under the kitchen sink, it did not follow up a report from the contractor that the back door was in very poor condition and it did not repair the internal door frames despite agreeing to do so.
9. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint and delayed sending its stage 2 response.

 

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 30 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £950 made up as follows: £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various outstanding repairs. £50 for the delay in the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 30 April 2026
3	Inspection order   The landlord must inspect the property. The landlord must consider if the circumstances in the resident’s home amount to a potential emergency or a potential significant hazard. If the circumstances could be, it must carry out an investigation in line with the provisions of the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the inspection is completed by the due date or within the relevant prescribed requirement if it believes Awaab’s law applies. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified surveyor. 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 entire property for any concerns with damp and mould and produces a written report with photographs.   The survey must set out: Whether there is an emergency or significant hazard – based on the conditions in the property and the household’s health and circumstances. Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of any 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 and resolution to the issues (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.   The landlord must ensure it provides the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its report by the due date (or within 3 working days of the date its investigations concluded, if it finds Awaab’s law applies).	No later than 15 April 2026
4	Repairs inspection order The landlord must jointly inspect the property with its contractor. It must produce a written report which must set a timebound action plan, setting out all other repairs it will do and by when. It must provide the resident and us with a copy of its report by the due date.	No later than 30 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 April 2025	The resident made a stage 1 complaint in which she said she was still waiting for a response to an email she had sent to the landlord on 14 March 2025. The email had outlined various repairs, which she said she had been reporting since 2018 and 2019.
4 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 reply in which it confirmed that it would be arranging a joint inspection by a surveyor and a contractor. It said the resident would be able to discuss ways to resolve the mould issues during the inspection. It did not uphold the complaint.
8 April 2025	The resident wrote to the landlord and said she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. She said the landlord had not properly investigated the issues she had raised in her email dated 14 March 2025. She said the landlord could not resolve the damp and mould issues by carrying out mould washes. She also mentioned issues with the plumbing under her kitchen sink. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
16 May 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response in which it said: A surveyor had attended on 9 April 2025 and, as a result, had arranged for various orders to be raised. The leak under the kitchen sink would be repaired by 22 April 2025 and the target date for the other jobs was 19 August 2025. It acknowledged that the outstanding repairs had caused the resident considerable disruption and apologised for this. It accepted there had been delays and missed opportunities to resolve the matters sooner and this had caused frustration and disruption for the resident. It partly upheld the complaint and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint because she said there were still various outstanding repairs, including rotten door frames, crumbling walls, damp and mould and cracks in the walls.

 

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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

10. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
11. The resident said she had been experiencing problems with the condition of the property since roof leaks occurred in 2018 and 2019. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as us, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. We therefore consider it fair and reasonable for our investigation to focus on the landlord’s handling of events from 2023 when the resident contacted the landlord to report damp and mould.
12. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 January 2023 to report damp and mould in the bedrooms. The landlord raised an order on the same day to carry out a mould wash. This was a reasonable initial response as the resident had reported that mould was present. The landlord’s contractor carried out the mould wash on 7 February 2023, which was appropriate as it was completed within the 28-working day target timescale set for the job.
13. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 April 2023 to report that she was still experiencing damp and mould in both bedrooms. She said that operatives had previously attended but had not been able to resolve the issue. She therefore asked for a surveyor to inspect the property. The landlord’s records show that it raised an order on 26 May 2023 for another mould wash. Given the previous mould wash had not resolved matters, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have tried to find out the cause of the mould by arranging for a surveyor to inspect the property.
14. The landlord’s records state that the resident refused access for the contractor to carry out the mould wash as she said there was rising damp and dry rot in the property that the landlord needed to investigate. She then contacted the landlord in July 2024 to again ask for a surveyor to inspect. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether a surveyor attended, however, the landlord raised an order in August 2024 to repoint the external brickwork around the bedroom windows. In response, a contractor inspected and said that repointing was not needed. Instead, it recommended removing soil from around the property and carrying out ‘tanking’ to make the walls waterproof.
15. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord followed up or carried out further investigations into the contractor’s recommendations. Furthermore, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord communicated to the resident the next steps it would take. The landlord’s lack of follow-up action and communication with the resident regarding the reported damp and mould were unreasonable. She had continued to report damp and mould issues and the landlord’s contractor had reported that more extensive works were needed to resolve the issues.
16. The landlord’s lack of communication meant that the resident had not been advised about the landlord’s plans for resolving the issues and this had caused her distress and inconvenience. As a result, she wrote to the landlord on 14 March 2025 regarding damp, mould and outstanding repairs in the property. In her email, she questioned why the contractor had recently contacted her again to offer a mould wash as the contractor had carried out previous mould treatments and the problem had returned. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not communicated a clearer plan for resolving the reported damp and mould issues, particularly as the resident had reported that it was a recurring problem.
17. The resident also wrote to the landlord on 15 March 2025 to say she had returned home that day to find a contractor was lifting the paving slabs at the front of the house to install drainage underneath. She questioned why the work was being done and said a surveyor had previously told her that the soil needed to be removed from around the property and the walls ‘tanked’. The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident about the drainage work it had arranged was again unreasonable and left the resident questioning the purpose of the works.
18. The landlord did not respond to the points in the resident’s email of 14 March 2025 until its stage 2 reply on 16 May 2025, which was 2 months later. This was despite the landlord acknowledging the email on 17 March 2025 and advising her that it would respond within 10 working days. The delay in responding was inappropriate and caused the resident additional time, trouble and frustration. As a result, she wrote to the landlord on 2 April 2025 and questioned why it had not replied to her email.
19. In its stage 1 response dated 4 April 2025, the landlord said it had arranged a joint inspection for its surveyor and the contractor to attend. This was a reasonable response as the surveyor and the contractor had recommended different solutions following their respective inspections. The landlord’s records show that a surveyor inspected the property on 9 April 2025 but it is unclear whether this was a joint inspection with the contractor. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord advised the resident of the surveyor’s findings, for example, in relation to the cause of the reported damp and mould or any proposed preventative work.
20. The landlord’s lack of communication was unreasonable as the resident had not received any assurances that the landlord had identified the cause of the reported damp and mould and would be taking remedial action. The resident said she had been told the property was suffering from rising damp and the contractor’s notes from March 2025 confirm that also. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord explained to the resident whether rising damp was affecting the property and, if so, what remedial work it proposed to carry out.
21. One of the recommendations in our 2021 Spotlight report on damp and mould was that landlords should ensure they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
22. The resident had advised the landlord on 14 March 2025 that the condition of the property was affecting her breathing and her daughter’s eczema. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, the landlord did not, in our view, show during the complaints process that it had considered the resident’s reported vulnerabilities. For example, it did not use its stage 2 reply to comment on the root causes of the reported damp and mould or propose urgent action to address the issues.
23. Overall, we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould because:
    1. The landlord did not arrange for a surveyor to investigate the cause of the reported damp and mould in 2023, despite the resident saying that the damp and mould had returned after the contractor had carried out a mould wash.
    2. The landlord did not follow up or carry out further investigations into the contractor’s recommendations to remove soil from around the property and carry out tanking after its inspection in August 2024.
    3. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It did not provide the resident with any information about the findings from its inspections. Also, it did not provide a clear plan for addressing the reported damp and mould or explain why it had carried out drainage works at the front rather than acting on the contractor’s recommendations.
    4. The landlord did not reply to the resident’s email dated 14 March 2025 within its agreed timescale.
    5. The landlord did not use its stage 2 response to clarify whether its surveyor had identified the root cause of the reported damp and mould and the action it intended to take. This was despite the resident reporting health issues caused by the property condition.
24. Although the landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 2, it did not adequately acknowledge its failings in terms of responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould or offer financial redress to put things right. We have therefore also ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £500 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings, including its poor communication. The sum is within the range of sums recommended in our Remedies Guidance for situations where there have been failings which adversely affected the resident, for example, by causing distress and inconvenience.
25. We wrote to the landlord on 18 December 2025 giving it notice that there could be a hazard (or material change) under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. As such, the landlord was required to consider and assess if this could be a potential significant or emergency hazard. The landlord’s records show that it raised an order on 23 December 2025 to inspect the property for damp and mould following our contact. We have no further information on what action the landlord took at that time.
26. On 16 March 2026 the resident told us that her breathing issue had worsened and her eldest daughter’s eczema had flared up severely. It is not within our remit to comment on whether damp and mould affected the health of the resident or her daughter. However, we believe this information constitutes a material change in respect of Awaab’s Law, which came into effect on 27 October 2025. A material change is a change in the original reported circumstances, such as a change to the effect of a hazard on a resident’s health. We have therefore ordered the landlord to investigate the damp and mould in line with Awaab’s Law timeframes.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various outstanding repairs
Finding	Maladministration

27. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The structure includes walls, ceilings and plasterwork. The exterior is the outside of the building, including external walls and the roof. It includes drains, guttering and external pipes. It is also a requirement under Section 11 that the landlord must keep in repair and working order water pipes, basins, sinks, baths and toilets.

The reported leak under the kitchen sink

28. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 January 2023 to report a persistent leak under the kitchen sink. The contractor agreed an appointment with the resident. It then attended the appointment on 7 February 2023 and renewed the pipe work under the sink. It was appropriate that the contractor attended on the date agreed with the resident and carried out repairs.
29. The landlord raised a further order on 16 October 2024 to repair a leaking pipe under the kitchen sink. The contractor attended on 4 November 2024 and carried out repairs to the waste pipe and the condense pipe from the boiler. The job had been raised on a 28-working day priority code and therefore the contractor attended within an appropriate timescale.
30. The contractor reported that the landlord should arrange a follow-on inspection of the plumbing work. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord arranged the follow-on inspection until the resident chased the landlord on 17 March 2025. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not been proactive in arranging the follow-on inspection of the plumbing following the contractor’s recommendation in November 2024. It meant that the resident had experienced further distress and inconvenience because of the reported persistent leak and because she had to chase the landlord.
31. The landlord inspected the plumbing on 9 April 2025 and raised an order for a plumber to attend. The plumber attended on 15 April 2025 and fitted a new waste pipe. The job was raised with a target date of 22 April 2025 and therefore the work was carried out within an appropriate timescale.
32. Overall, it was unreasonable that the landlord took more than 5 months after the contractor’s visit to inspect the plumbing under the sink and arrange permanent repairs.

The back door and frame and the internal door frames

33. The landlord raised an order on 26 May 2023 to carry out repairs to the back door and bedroom door frames. The landlord booked an appointment for 13 September 2023, which was 3 months later. It was inappropriate that the landlord had not offered an earlier appointment as it had raised the order on a 28-working day priority code.
34. The landlord’s records state that the operative attended on 13 September 2023 but the resident did not allow him to carry out the works because she said the landlord’s surveyor had agreed to fit a new back door. We have not seen any evidence that following the contractor’s visit the landlord clarified the position with the surveyor or contacted the resident to discuss the matter further. As a result of the landlord’s lack of communication with the resident, she chased the landlord on 28 February 2024. She disputed that she had refused the work and said the surveyor had agreed to install a new back door.
35. Following the contractor’s visit in September 2023, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not clarified with the surveyor whether she had agreed to install a new back door and then contacted the resident. This showed poor communication on the landlord’s part and it resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for an update.
36. The resident again contacted the landlord about the back door on 23 July 2024 as she said she had not heard from the surveyor. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not contacted the resident to discuss the back door following her contact in February 2024.
37. Following further contact from the resident and some access issues reported by the contractor during August and September 2024, the contractor attended on 8 October 2024 and applied sealant to the back door frame to stop rain entering. The operative’s notes said that the back door and frame were in “very poor condition” and needed replacing.
38. The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 March 2025 about various matters, including the door frames. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not contacted the resident about the back door given that the operative had reported in October 2024 that it was in very poor condition. It was also unreasonable that the landlord had not followed up the outstanding work to the internal door frames. It had raised an order to repair the frames in May 2023 and the resident had advised the landlord in February 2024 that she had not refused the work.
39. The landlord said in its stage 2 reply that its surveyor had inspected the property on 9 April 2025 and raised various orders, including to overhaul the back door and renew the architrave frame around the bedroom doors. Both orders had target completion dates of 19 August 2025. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to order repairs based on the surveyor’s findings, it was unreasonable that it had still not communicated with the resident about whether it would renew the back door.
40. In terms of the internal door frames, the contractor did not carry out the repairs requested by the landlord. Instead, it returned the job to the landlord on 14 April 2025 because it said neither it nor the landlord were responsible for repairing internal doors. We have not seen any evidence that prior to issuing its stage 2 response on 16 May 2025, the landlord had followed this up with the contractor or the resident. This was unreasonable as the landlord had agreed it would carry out the repairs and therefore the resident was expecting the contractor to carry out the work. It was also unreasonable that the landlord had not checked on the progress of the job as part of its stage 2 investigation. Had it done so, it would have realised the contractor had returned the job a month before it sent its stage 2 reply.
41. The lack of communication between the landlord and its contractor regarding the internal door frames added to the resident’s frustration about the outstanding repairs. As a result, she contacted us on 23 October 2025 and said the repairs that had been scheduled to be carried out by 19 August 2025 were still outstanding and she had not been contacted by the landlord.
42. Overall, we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various outstanding repairs because:
    1. The landlord did not arrange a follow-up inspection of the plumbing under the kitchen sink until April 2025, despite the contractor recommending this in November 2024.
    2. There was a delay in the contractor attending to carry out repairs to the door frames after the landlord raised the order on 26 May 2023.
    3. The landlord did not contact the resident to discuss whether it would install a new back door following the operative’s visit in September 2023. This was despite the resident chasing the landlord for updates in February and July 2024.
    4. The landlord did not follow-up the contractor’s report from October 2024 that the back door and frame were in very poor condition and needed to be renewed.
    5. The contractor did not repair the internal door frames, despite the landlord agreeing to carry out the work.
    6. The landlord did not use its stage 2 response to properly investigate the status of the job to repair the internal door frames. As a result, it advised the resident that the work was still scheduled to be completed before 19 August 2025, whereas the contractor had returned the job a month earlier.
43. We have ordered the landlord to jointly inspect the property with the contractor to identify the outstanding repairs it is responsible for and produce a plan with timescales for completing the work.
44. We have also ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £400 to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and lack of communication in responding to the reported repairs. The award reflects the adverse impact on the resident caused by the landlord’s failings and is in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

45. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord may extend these timescales for responding. However, the extensions will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 without good reason. The landlord will explain the reason to the resident and inform them of the expected timescale for the response.
46. The resident submitted an online complaint form on 2 April 2025 and the landlord logged the form as a stage 1 complaint. It then promptly sent its stage 1 response on 4 April 2025.
47. The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 April 2025 to say she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint and sent its stage 2 response on 16 May 2025, which was 26 working days after receiving the complaint. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the complaint and the time taken to respond were inappropriate and not in line with its policy or our Complaint Handling Code.
48. We have found there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling as it did not acknowledge the stage 2 complaint and delayed sending its response. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £50 to reflect the delay in the resident receiving her stage 2 response. The amount ordered is within the range of sums recommended in our Remedies Guidance for cases where we have found service failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

49. The repair histories that the landlord supplied to us were unclear and made it difficult for us to identify when orders were raised and completed. This hampered our investigation. It is important that repair records clearly show information such as the date an order was raised, when it was completed, confirmation of the work carried out, the target date for completion and any comments such as access difficulties.

Communication

50. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. In particular, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord provided the resident with feedback following surveyors’ inspections. This meant she was unaware of the surveyors’ findings and any works agreed by the surveyor.