London Borough of Lambeth (202438202)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438202

London Borough of Lambeth

12 August 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs including water damage, the windows, the bathroom, the kitchen units, and cracks on the outside of the property.
2. Mice at the resident’s property.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The resident has several children, some of whom have health conditions and special educational needs which the landlord is aware of. The resident has given authorisation for her family worker to act as her representative in this complaint.
In August 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that there was water damage to the kitchen, the utility room, the dining room, and the kitchen.
In December 2020, the resident reported that there were mice in the property. The landlord’s pest controller recommended that the landlord cover airbricks with wire mesh and remove the kitchen units to block any holes to prevent mice from entering the property. The resident continued to report mice to the landlord between 2020 and 2025. The landlord’s pest control team carried out multiple visits to the resident’s property between 2020 and 2024, each time recommending that the landlord remove the kitchen units to block any holes where mice may be gaining entry.
The resident reported to the landlord in February 2021 that her windows were single glazed and let in cold air. She reported that her property had no loft insulation. She said she was spending a fortune on heating. The landlord responded to say it would not replace windows unless this was essential. It asked the resident to contact it if she wanted it to repair the windows. On 10 October 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that the windows were letting in water.
On 19 March 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that her bath panel was damaged and in need of replacing. On 27 March 2024, she reported that there was a leak from the bathroom through into the living room below. The landlord replaced the bath panel on 22 April 2024.
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 May 2024. For ease of reference this complaint will be referred to as complaint A. She said:
1. The windows were single glazed and had gaps around them which let in cold air.
2. All the kitchen units were falling apart.
3. There had been leaks into the kitchen and her children’s bedrooms and the downstairs of the property needed redecorating.
4. The landlord’s plumber had recommended that waterproof flooring was needed in the bathroom.
5. There were cracks on the outside of the property.
6. There were mice in the property. The landlord had removed one kitchen unit; however, its pest control team had recommended that the landlord needed to remove all kitchen units so that it could block up the holes where mice were entering the property.
On 4 June 2024 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to complaint A. It said it had booked an appointment to inspect the windows on 20 June 2024. It acknowledged that it had not removed all the kitchen units. It said it would carry out this work by 12 July 2024.
The resident’s representative escalated complaint A to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 27 June 2024. The resident’s representative said the surveyor who had attended the property had said they were only qualified to look at the cracks on the outside of the windows and they had not inspected the double glazing, the kitchen, the bathroom floor or the dining room.
On 1 August 2024, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to complaint A. It said it had raised works to install a new shower rail and curtain, lay waterproof flooring in the bathroom, and make good the water damage to the ceilings and walls in the kitchen, the utility room and the dining room, by the end of August 2024. It said the type of works needed to the resident’s property, fell within its planned works category and its timescale for carrying out planned works was 90 days.
The landlord’s repair records of 5 August 2024, show that it raised works to repoint around a bay window at the property. On 9 August 2024, its records show it carried out works to seal the windows in the property.
On 28 August 2024, the resident’s representative submitted a further complaint to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. For ease of reference this complaint will be referred to as complaint B. The resident’s representative said the kitchen needed refurbishing as the doors of the kitchen units were hanging off their hinges, there were holes in the back of units, and worktops were damaged. They said rats and mice were still coming into the kitchen.
The landlord fitted a new bathroom floor on 9 September 2024.
On 12 September 2024, the landlord put up scaffolding to repoint cracks on the outside of the property. On 16 September 2024, the resident’s representative asked the landlord when the scaffolding was due to come down as children were climbing on it.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to complaint B on 27 September 2024. It said it had arranged an appointment to repair the water damage in the kitchen and redecorate for 15 November 2024. It advised it would remove the kitchen units so that its pest control team could fill up holes. It said it would carry out this work by 31 December 2024. It confirmed that it had sealed windows and fitted a new bathroom floor.
On 3 October 2024, the resident’s representative escalated complaint B to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. They said the landlord had not draught-proofed the windows in the back room or the kitchen. The work to the outside of the property had not been carried out despite the scaffolding being put up 3 weeks previously.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to complaint B on 28 November 2024. It said it had installed a new shower rail and curtain and had blocked up holes round pipes in the bathroom on 8 November 2024. It said it had made good the water damage and redecorated in the kitchen and had removed the kitchen units on 15 November 2024. It said its pest control team had attended on 15 November 2024. It advised it would arrange a post inspection of the works it had carried out and the scaffolding should be removed within 2 weeks.
On 2 December 2024, the resident’s representative told the landlord the water damage in the utility room and dining room had not been remedied. They said it had not removed the kitchen units and the landlord’s pest control team had not attended the property at all in November 2024. They said the scaffolding was still up. They asked that the resident be allocated a housing officer.
One of the landlord’s housing officers visited the resident at her property on 20 December 2024. On 30 December 2024, the housing officer reported to the landlord’s repairs team that there was water damage on the walls in the kitchen, utility room, and dining room, and the kitchen units were falling apart. They also reported that all the window frames were damaged and that there were gaps between the window frames and the windows.
The resident’s representative complained to the Ombudsman on 7 January 2025. They said the landlord had completed none of the outstanding works. They said that the resident’s GP had diagnosed chilblains in one of her children due to draughts from the windows. The resident’s representative continued to chase the landlord for updates on the repairs between January and April 2025.
The landlord’s repair records of 12 May 2025 indicate that it carried out some more works to address the water damage.
On 10 June 2025, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord to inform it that the resident wished to start a legal claim for disrepair. The letter of claim stated that there was damp and mould in the property, all the windows in the property were faulty, the kitchen units were faulty, there were cracks to the exterior of the building, there was a mice infestation, the guttering was faulty and one of the banisters was broken. The landlord told us that an independent surveyor was due to attend the property on 19 June 2025. We asked the landlord to provide a copy of the surveyor’s report; however, it has not done so.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

As noted above, the resident has reported the repairs to the windows, the water damage and the mice infestation to the landlord since 2020. There is no indication that the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about these issues prior to her complaint of 2 May 2024. The Ombudsman encourages 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 historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, this assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the events which occurred from the 12-month period preceding the resident’s complaint of 2 May 2024 onwards. However, it is understood that these were longstanding issues, and the landlord was expected to take this into account in its response to the resident’s complaints.
As the damp and mould, the faulty gutter and the broken banister referred to in the resident’s letter of claim have not been escalated via the landlord’s complaint procedure, we have not considered these issues in this assessment. This is because the Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she can complain to the landlord. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied, once her new complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. However, as there are vulnerabilities and young children in the household, we recommend that the landlord carry out a damp and mould survey of the property and takes steps to remedy any issues within its published repair timescales, if it has not done so already.

Policies and procedures

Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to routine repairs within 28 working days.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code), published on our website, sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states that landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, of acknowledging the complaint. The Code states if landlords need more time to investigate a complaint, any extension must not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1, or 20 working days, at stage 2. The Code became statutory at the start of April 2024 and all landlords which are members of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme are required to follow it.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property

The resident reported to the landlord on 23 October 2023, that her windows were leaking. The landlord did not carry-out any repairs to the windows until 9 August 2024. We accept that some repairs to windows can be complex and can take up to 3 months to complete, particularly if the landlord needs to replace window frames or glazing. However, the landlord’s repair records show that it only sealed round the windows, therefore this work should have been completed within the landlord’s timeframes for carrying out routine repairs of 28 days. The fact that the landlord did not carry out this work until 7 months outside of its timescales for doing so, was a failing, which will have likely caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience, particularly given the vulnerabilities within her household.
In their stage 2 complaint of 3 October 2024 (complaint B), the resident’s representative told the landlord that no draught proofing had been completed in the back room and the kitchen. The resident’s representative reported to the landlord on 2 December 2024 that the windows were still letting in draughts. On 30 December 2024, the landlord’s housing officer informed its repairs team that all the window frames at the property were damaged and that there were gaps between the window frames and the windows. This suggests that the repairs the landlord had carried out in August 2024, were inadequate and ineffective. The landlord is ordered to inspect all the windows at the resident’s property. If it identifies that works to the windows are necessary, it should provide a schedule of works to the resident and the Ombudsman, setting out what works it will carry out and the estimated date it will complete these by, in line with its published timescales for carrying out repairs.
In her complaint of 2 May 2024 (complaint A), the resident reported to the landlord that her kitchen units were falling apart. In their complaint of 28 August 2024 (complaint B), the resident’s representative told the landlord that the kitchen needed refurbishing as the doors of the units were hanging off their hinges, there were holes in the back of units, and worktops were damaged. The landlord did not address the condition of the kitchen in any of its stage 1 or stage 2 complaint responses. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, set out above, states that the landlord must address all points raised in a complaint. The fact that it did not respond to this aspect of the resident’s complaint was unreasonable and may have given the resident the impression that it was not listening to her concerns. The landlord is ordered to inspect the condition of the kitchen and carry out any necessary repairs.
On 2 May 2024 (complaint A), the resident told the landlord that the downstairs of her property needed decorating due to leaks. In its stage 2 complaint response to complaint A of 1 August 2024, the landlord said it would make good the water damage to the ceilings and walls in the kitchen, utility room and dining room by the end of August 2024. However, it did not do so, as in its stage 1 complaint response to complaint B of 27 September 2024, the landlord said it had booked an appointment to make good the water damage to the kitchen ceiling on 15 November 2024. On 2 December 2024, the resident’s representative told the landlord that it had not remedied the water damage in the utility room or the dining room.
The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman on 24 July 2025 that it had not carried out any further works to remedy the water damage in the resident’s property. The fact that this issue has not been fully remedied over a year after the resident raised the issue in her initial complaint, is unacceptable and would have caused significant distress and inconvenience for the resident. The landlord is ordered to remedy the water damage in the resident’s utility room and living room.
The resident reported a leak coming from her bathroom on 19 March 2024. The landlord’s records of 27 March 2024 stated that new waterproof flooring was needed in the bathroom. The resident raised the issue of the bathroom floor again in complaint A on 2 May 2024. In its stage 2 complaint response to complaint A of 1 August 2024, the landlord told the resident it would lay new flooring in the bathroom by the end of August 2024. In complaint B of 28 August 2024, the resident’s representative told the landlord that the bathroom was still leaking. The landlord fitted a new bathroom floor on 9 September 2024. The fact that it did not do so until 5 months after it identified that a waterproof bathroom floor was needed, was a failing which will have likely caused the resident and her family considerable trouble and inconvenience.
In its stage 2 complaint response to complaint A, the landlord said that the type of works needed to the resident’s property, fell within its planned works category. It said its timescales for carrying out planned works was 90 days. This was misleading. The works the landlord referred to in its stage 2 complaint response to complaint A of 1 August 2024 were repairing water damage, laying a new bathroom floor and removing and refitting the kitchen units, all of which were routine repairs. The landlord should therefore have remedied these issues within its timescales for carrying out routine repairs of 28 days. It is recommended that the landlord carry out staff training to ensure that its staff can correctly identify which issues should be considered to be routine repairs and which issues would be considered planned works.
In her stage 1 complaint of 2 May 2024 (complaint A) the resident reported that there were cracks to the outside of her property. The landlord put up scaffolding on 12 September 2024, so that it could carryout repointing works. Works such as repointing, which require scaffolding can be complex and we acknowledge it may not have been possible therefore for the landlord to carry out these works within its timescales for completing routine repairs. However, the landlord told the Ombudsman on 24 July 2025, that it has not carried out any repointing to the exterior of the resident’s property. It said that this was initially due to it needing to appoint a new contractor as the works required were too extensive for the original contractor it had appointed to do the works. However, it told the Ombudsman it appointed the second contractor in August 2024. On16 September 2024, the resident asked the landlord to take the scaffolding down as children had started climbing on it. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to take steps to ensure that children could not access the scaffolding rather than dismantling it and not completing any works. The fact that the landlord has not carried out any repointing works, over a year after the resident first reported that there were cracks to the outside of her property was unacceptable, particularly as this issue may be contributing to the heating loss she reported to the landlord. The landlord is ordered to provide a schedule of works to the resident and the Ombudsman setting out the date by which it will complete the repointing to the outside of the property.
The landlord has not offered the resident any financial redress for its delays in it completing repairs to her property. This is a significant failing. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to compensation. The guidance states that where we identify failures that adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 compensation should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience the delays in it carrying out repairs will have likely caused her and her family.

The landlord’s handling of mice at the resident’s property

The landlord’s pest control team attended the resident’s property on 11 November 2023, 11 December 2023 and 5 July 2024. On each visit it recommended that the landlord needed to remove the kitchen units so that it could block up holes that the mice were using to gain entry to the resident’s property. In its stage 1 complaint response to complaint A of 4 June 2024, the landlord said it would remove the kitchen units by 12 July 2024. It did not do so, as evidenced by its pest control reports of 20 September and 21 October 2024, which again recommended that the landlord needed to remove the kitchen units.
In its stage 1 complaint response to complaint B of 27 September 2024, the landlord said it would remove the kitchen units on 15 November 2024. In its stage 2 complaint response to complaint B of 28 November 2024, the landlord said it had carried out this work. On 2 December 2024, the resident’s representative disputed that the landlord had removed the kitchen units and had blocked up the holes. The landlord’s pest control report dated 12 December 2024, states that its operative could not reach under the units to block up the holes. This evidence supports the resident’s account that the landlord had not carried out this work. This was a failing which will have likely caused the resident considerable distress, particularly as she had young children and the landlord was aware of this. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to confirm whether the kitchen units were removed at a later date and what further steps it took in relation to the mice after November 2024. The landlord has provided a pest control report dated 20 May 2025, stating that there were still mice in the property but has provided no evidence that it removed the kitchen units. The landlord is ordered to carry out an inspection of the kitchen to confirm whether or not it has blocked up the holes behind the units. If it finds that there are still holes present, the landlord is ordered to remove the kitchen units and block up the holes. If this work has now been completed, the landlord is ordered to set out in writing to the resident and the Ombudsman what further steps it will take to address the mice in the resident’s property.
The landlord has not offered the resident any financial redress for this aspect of the complaint. As noted above, where we find maladministration, our remedies guidance recommends compensation of £100-£600. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors in its handling of the mice at her property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the mice at the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that it provides the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance by the same date:
1. Inspect all the windows at the resident’s property. If the landlord identifies that works to the windows are necessary, it should provide a schedule of works to both the resident and the Ombudsman, setting out what works it will carry out and the estimated date it will complete these by.
2. Inspect the condition of the kitchen and carry out any necessary repairs.
3. Remedy the water damage in the resident’s utility room and living room.
4. Provide a schedule of works to the resident and the Ombudsman setting out the estimated date by which it will complete the repointing to the outside of the residents property.
5. Inspect the kitchen to confirm whether the holes behind the kitchen units have been blocked. If there are still holes behind the kitchen units, the landlord is ordered to remove the units and block up the holes. If this work has now been completed, the landlord is ordered to set out in writing to the resident and the Ombudsman what further steps it will take to address the mice in the resident’s property.
6. Pay the resident £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors in its handling of the repairs to her property.
7. Pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors in its handling of the mice in her property.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord carries out:
1. A damp and mould survey at the resident’s property and takes steps to remedy any damp and mould it identifies.
2. Training to ensure that its staff can correctly identify which issues should be considered routine repairs and which issues would be considered planned works.