London Borough of Lambeth (202424767)

Decision
Case ID	202424767
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lambeth
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	16 March 2026

Background

1. The resident is the leaseholder of a 3-bedroom flat. He said that he became concerned about the condition of the windows and asked the landlord to assess them. It visited in April 2023. When he did not hear back after the visit, he complained.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Window replacements.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found service failure with the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Window replacements.
   2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Window replacements

4. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation for its delayed response was partly reasonable. However, its communication was poor and left the complaint unresolved.

The complaint

5. The landlord delayed at both stages of its complaints process. While it acknowledged its delay at stage 1 it delayed again at stage 2 and did not provide any remedies.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300, made up as follows: £100 for its failed communication around the number of windows to be replaced at the property. £50 for its failure to respond within complaint timeframes. £150 (if not already paid), as offered in its complaint process. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 13 April 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the “main bedroom” and “bedroom 1’s (hallway)” windows, as referred to in its 25 April 2023 record. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. Who should complete the inspection 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 determines: the condition of the windows and whether they require repairing or replacing. 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 resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work·	No later than 13 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 January 2024	The resident complained about how long the landlord was taking to replace windows at his property and the communications around that.
5 March 2024	The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It set out the usual timeframe for replacing windows and accepted there had been a delay, for which it apologised.
7 March 2024	The landlord says the resident asked to escalate his complaint (we have not seen a copy of his escalation). It noted that the resident said there were discrepancies in the stage 1 response and that rather than waiting the 4-6 weeks to replace windows after measurement, he had been waiting 43 weeks. He said he was worried the windows could fall out and injure someone.
15 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said the work order had now been approved and its contractors would arrange for the required works to be carried out. It apologised for the delay, which it said was because its contractors had delayed providing a quote for approval. It offered £150 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident took his complaint to the Ombudsman because he said the landlord had only replaced 2 out of 4 windows. He wanted all 4 windows replaced.

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	Window replacement
Finding	Service failure

6. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in replacing the windows at the property. It explained that, once approved, window replacement should take between 4–6 weeks. At stage 2 (on 15 April 2024) it accepted that the process had taken longer. It said its contractor had delayed sending a quote for approval. It confirmed that the quote was received on 1 April 2024 and that the works would then progress.
7. When a landlord accepts failures, as in this case, we consider whether the redress offered was sufficient to resolve the resident’s complaint. In doing so we assess whether its actions, such as its apology, its compensation offer for delay, and its arrangements for the works, aligned with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
8. The available records are unclear about when the contractor submitted its quote for replacement of windows for the landlord’s approval. However, the landlord accepted it had delayed and apologised. It also offered compensation that was consistent with its compensation policy.
9. The records and communications about which windows were due for replacement are also unclear. The file includes 2 reference numbers for window-replacement works. One record, made on 23 April 2023, relates to what appears to be a request for approval to replace 4 windows. The other relates to replacing 2 living room windows. These 2 windows were replaced on 21 June 2024.
10. The resident said he understood that 4 windows were to be replaced, although he also said he did not receive written confirmation of this. The landlord’s complaint responses did not state how many windows it intended to replace.
11. In response to our enquiries, the landlord provided an April 2025 email from a surveyor who recalled that only 2 windows required replacement. This position is not supported clearly by the earlier records referring to 4. It appears that while there were initial recommendations for 4 windows the landlord ultimately decided only 2 needed to be replaced. There is no evidence of the landlord communicating its plans and intentions clearly to the resident.
12. The lack of clarity in the landlord’s records, and its failure to give the resident clear information, has made it difficult to determine the position in this case. However, what is apparent is the landlord’s poor communication. This was not addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses, leaving the matter unresolved.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

13. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaint process that aligns with our Complaint Handling Code. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It also aims to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
14. The landlord sent its stage 1 response 33 working days late. It apologised for this delay. However, the length of the delay was significant, particularly as the resident was complaining about delay in the window replacement works.
15. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 6 working days outside its target timescale. This was a short delay, but it did not apologise for it.
16. Overall, the landlord did not meet its complaint‑handling timescales at either stage. While it apologised for the first delay, it delayed again with its second response, leaving its slow complaint handling unremedied.

Learning

17. The landlord’s failure to communicate its actions to the resident was unhelpful and added to a lot of the confusion in this case.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. As has been set out above the landlord’s record keeping was unclear. At times it was contradictory. The landlord should consider the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management for accurate record keeping.

Communication

19. Overall, the landlord’s communication with the leaseholder was poor. More informative communication could have reassured him that it had an action plan to address his requests.