London Borough of Lambeth (202515782)

Decision
Case ID	202511623 and 202515782
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Lambeth
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	11 March 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat owned by the landlord. She complained to the landlord about its handling of outstanding works including damp and mould, overcrowding, safeguarding issues and an inaccessible bin store. The resident told the landlord she had disabilities that restricted her in preparing her home for works. The landlord offered to help her pack and store items. However, the resident remained dissatisfied and requested a move. The landlord refused a move, and the resident escalated her complaint to us. The work remains outstanding.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to concerns of:
1. Rehousing including overcrowding and safeguarding.
2. Staff conduct.
3. Damp, mould and outstanding repairs.
4. An inaccessible bin store.
We have also considered the associated complaints.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord’s response to concerns of rehousing including overcrowding and safeguarding are outside of our jurisdiction.
The landlord’s response to concerns of staff conduct are outside of our jurisdiction.
We have found maladministration with the landlord’s response to concerns about damp, mould, and outstanding repairs.
We have found no maladministration with the landlord’s response to an inaccessible bin store.
We have found service failure with the associated complaints.

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

Summary of reasons

The overcrowding and safeguarding issues are linked to the resident’s rehousing request. The allocation of properties are managed by the local authority under its lettings policy. As such, this complaint is not within our jurisdiction to investigate. It may be more appropriate for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to investigate.
We do not have evidence that the resident’s concerns about staff conduct have been through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with a schedule of works including timeframes to complete works. There is no evidence the landlord adequately responded to the resident on why it would not allow a decant in accordance with its decant policy.
The landlord provided an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns about the inaccessible bin store.
The landlord’s complaint handling record keeping was poor. It failed to respond to the stage 1 complaint (202511623) in compliance with the Code’s timeframe.

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 10 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenienced caused by its lack of planned works, estimated timeframe and failure to provide the resident with its decision making on why a decant was not necessary. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	10 April 2026
3	Action order We have made an inspection order because of the prolonged period since the initial inspection. It is important that the resident allows access to the property by pre-arranged mutual convenient appointment. What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must 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. The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the outstanding repairs and produces a written report with photographs. Set out whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The landlord must produce an action plan that sets out a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issues. It must include within its action plan: The likely timescales for completion of the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary and if not, how it reached its decision in accordance with its decant policy. The landlord must provide the resident and us with its action plan outlining the specified information.	10 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
April 2025 to May 2025	The resident reported to the landlord that the communal bin store was locked, preventing residents from accessing the bins. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 May 2025. It apologised for the inconvenience and explained that, following an inspection, its officer found the bin store was not locked but was being held closed with an object.
June 2025 to July 2025	On 14 June 2025, the resident escalated her complaint about the bin store. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 18 July 2025. It was satisfied there had been no service failures. It said it had found no issues with the bin room and no evidence that the bin store had been locked or inaccessible. It also advised that its neighbourhood team would continue to monitor the area. On 26 June 2025, the resident raised a separate complaint with the landlord about various outstanding repairs, including her request for a move. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 July 2025. It told her: Repairs A legal disrepair case had been settled in September 2023, which included agreed works to treat black mould in the kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom. It acknowledged delays in progressing the repairs, partly due to access issues and difficulties preparing the property for internal works because of the resident’s medical limitations in moving household items. It had offered to help with packing and storage of items. It said a temporary move was not required based on its assessment of the property, although it was keeping this decision under review. Safeguarding It acknowledged that a referral or formal risk assessment had not been carried out and that further support should have been offered. It said it was conducting an internal review. Communication It acknowledged and apologised for delays in communication. Learning It had reminded staff of the importance of responding promptly to resident’s correspondence.
21 August 2025	The resident’s support worker sent a letter to the landlord explaining that the resident was unable to carry out the physical tasks such as moving furniture or packing belongings due to physical and psychological trauma. The support worker said if the resident lived at the property while repairs were taking place it would pose a significant risk to her health and recovery. The support worker recommended that she be moved to alternative accommodation while the works were completed.
October 2025 to November 2025	On 23 October 2025, the resident escalated her complaint through our Service. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 November 2025. Below is a summary: It apologised for the delayed response and for delays in its repairs process. It had made repeated attempts over a prolonged period to gain access to complete the agreed disrepair works, including treating black mould. Support with packing items was still available to the resident. A move (decant) was not considered necessary. It was following up on a copy of the surveyor’s report so it could send it to her. It reiterated its position regarding failures in safeguarding and communication. It offered to hold a case meeting, either in person or online, to agree next steps. It asked the resident to confirm how she wished to proceed.
Referral to the Ombudsman July 2025 and November 2025	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the bin store issue and referred her complaint to us in July 2025. She said the bin store had been locked and that this had caused her stress and inconvenience. In November 2025, the resident also referred the outstanding repairs complaint to us. Her concerns focused on the landlord’s handling of: Access issues. Refusal of a move. Lack of a full assessment of the property. Overcrowding. Safeguarding. The resident told us that the landlord’s failure to provide a clear schedule of works with defined timeframes, along with repeated access requests from its removal company, had caused her distress and created “instability in her health.” In a recent introductory call with the resident on 3 March 2026, she told us that she had reported a hazard to the landlord involving condensation dripping into a kitchen electrical socket. The socket caused a “buzzing” noise, the electrics tripped and the extractor fan stopped working. The landlord had attended and the resident said she was awaiting feedback from the landlord about the kitchen layout.

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	Rehousing including overcrowding and safeguarding.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident has requested rehousing due to overcrowding. The local authority manages the lettings policy and assesses overcrowding in accordance with legislation and its lettings policy. We have no power to investigate the complaint about rehousing, overcrowding or safeguarding issues as these are all linked to the rehousing request. The resident should contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if she wishes to pursue this complaint.

Complaint	Staff conduct
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident refers to a staff conduct issue. There is no evidence the resident raised this as part of the complaints procedure therefore we have no power to investigate. The resident should contact the landlord to raise a complaint.

Complaint	Damp, mould and outstanding repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord is obliged, in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from hazards at the start and throughout the tenancy.
The outstanding repairs (damp treatment and electrical works) were previously the subject of a legal disrepair case. That case was settled in September 2023, but the agreed works have not yet been completed. We will not investigate any issues that occurred during the 2023 legal disrepair process. Our investigation will begin from 2025, in line with the landlord’s complaint investigation.
The landlord had agreed to complete the outstanding repairs which related to mould treatment and electrical works included in the disrepair settlement. It arranged for a surveyor to attend the property on 9 January 2025, but the visit was unsuccessful due to an access issue. The resident asked to be moved while the works were carried out. She explained that the property was overcrowded and that injuries from a road traffic accident made it difficult for her to prepare the home for the repairs. The landlord declined a temporary move but agreed to arrange storage for her belongings while the works were completed.
In April 2025, the landlord’s removal company contacted the resident to progress storage of her belongings while the outstanding works were carried out. According to the landlord’s notes, the resident said she was not ready to proceed because she had not received full details of the works or information about how long they would take.
In June 2025, the resident raised a complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 response in July 2025. It acknowledged delays in progressing the repairs, partly due to access difficulties and the resident’s limitations in preparing her home for the works. It confirmed that assistance with packing and removal remained available, but it declined a temporary move based on its assessment of the property. While these actions were reasonable and resolution focused, we have not seen a copy of the landlord’s assessment, so we cannot determine whether its decision to refuse a temporary move was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s temporary decant policy states it may need to move a resident from their property in the event of disrepair or situation which means the tenant cannot continue to live in their home temporarily. It states that officers should consider the specific situation in each case when considering whether it is reasonable for the works to be carried out while the tenant/s are in occupation. Factors could include hoarding, overcrowding, health issues or vulnerabilities.
Given the resident had explained both her difficulties remaining in the property during the works and the impact of overcrowding, it was important for the landlord to set out its reasons for refusing a decant and to explain why it believed its decant policy did not apply in her circumstances. Its failure to do so was inappropriate and contributed to delays in completing the works, as well as causing the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident received support from a third-party support worker who wrote to the landlord in August 2025 setting out the reasons why the resident and her family could not remain in the property during the works. The landlord’s records do not show whether the landlord factored into its decision making this additional information or whether it responded to this correspondence. The landlord should refer to our Spotlight report on Knowledge Information Management (KIM – May 2023) for best practice.
In October 2025, the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 response in November 2025. Its response focused on the repeated unsuccessful attempts to arrange access to the property. It restated its offer to support the resident with packing and storing items, but its position on refusing a temporary move remained unchanged, and it offered to meet with her to discuss next steps.
While the landlord attempted to resolve some of the issues and offered the resident support in packing and storing items including a meeting to move things forward, it missed out key steps. The landlord did not provide the resident with a plan of works, how this would be managed and the timeframe involved. Without this vital information, the resident could not move on and make an informed choice of how or if she could manage the works. The landlord also failed to explain why the decant policy criteria was not met. These inactions were inappropriate and caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
For these reasons we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to outstanding repairs at the property. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident, compensate her £200 for the distress and inconvenience. We have also ordered the landlord to provide the resident with its proposed schedule of works, estimated timescales for completion of works and its reconsideration of whether a decant is appropriate in accordance with its decant policy.

Complaint	Bin store
Finding	No maladministration

In March 2025, the resident reported to the landlord that the communal bin store had been locked for a 2-week period, preventing residents from using it. She contacted the landlord again in April 2025 to request an update. The landlord then logged the issue as a stage 1 complaint and responded in mid‑May 2025. It apologised for the inconvenience and explained that, when it inspected the bin store, it was not locked but had been held closed with an object.
In mid‑June 2025, the resident escalated her concerns. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 June 2025. It said that, after reviewing the matter, it had found no failures and no faults with the bin store. However, it agreed to continue monitoring the area.
Overall, it is accepted that a locked bin store would cause inconvenience to residents. The landlord explained that, at the time of its inspection, the bin store was not locked, and it committed to monitoring the area. The landlord’s response was therefore reasonable in the circumstances. We have found no maladministration with the landlord’s response to concerns about an inaccessible bin store.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

Complaint 202511623

The resident raised her complaint on 26 June 2025. We do not have evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It responded at stage 1 on 23 July 2025.
The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states complaints must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 working days of the complaint being received. Landlords must issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being received. The landlord responded 19 days later which was inappropriate.
The resident escalated her complaint on 23 October 2025 via our Service. The landlord agreed to respond to the resident by 30 October 2025 however it sent her an extension letter stating it would reply by 7 November 2025. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 6 November 2025.
The Code states requests for stage 2 must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 2 of the complaints procedure within 5 working days of the escalation request being received. Landlords must issue a final response to the stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. The landlord complied with the Code’s timeframe.

Complaint handling 202515782

The resident states she complained to the landlord on 27 March 2025. The landlord has not provided us with this evidence. On 22 April 2025, the resident complained to the landlord. We do not have evidence to determine whether the landlord acknowledged the complaint. On 16 May 2025, the landlord sent its stage 1 response 16 working days later and slightly outside of the Code’s 10 working day timeframe.
On 14 June 2025, the resident escalated her complaint. We do not have evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint however it responded at stage 2 shortly afterwards on 18 June 2025 and within the Code’s 20 working day timeframe.
Overall, the landlord’s record keeping let it down. The landlord responded outside of the Code’s timeframe at stage 1 (202511623). We have found service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling for which the landlord should issue an apology to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord must review the complaint and identify how it will improve its repair service and complaint handling.
The landlord should refer to our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) resources for best practice.