London Borough of Lambeth (202404363)

Background

1. The resident has been the leaseholder of the property since December 2016. She rents the 3‑bedroom first‑floor flat to 3 tenants. She has not reported any additional needs. In November 2023, the resident complained that the roof had been leaking for years. She said the landlord had carried out repeated repairs, but the leaks continued to recur and had caused damp inside the property. She said she had reported the most recent leak a few weeks earlier. She also said she wanted the landlord to replace the roof. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses and brought her complaint to this Service.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, and the resultant damp and mould.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, and the resultant damp and mould.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, and the resultant damp and mould.

5. The landlord did not complete the roof repairs within the timescales set out in its repair policy. It did not keep the resident regularly informed about the delays, and the updates it did provide were not timely or consistently accurate. There were repeated periods of inaction, weak coordination with contractors, and limited evidence seen of effective oversight to progress the repairs through to effective completion. Despite acknowledging the delays, the landlord did not offer any redress for its failings.

The complaint handling.

6. The landlord did not follow its complaint policy or the requirements of the Complaint Handling Code because it did not acknowledge the complaint and it issued its stage 1 response after the expected timescale. Its complaint management did not maintain effective oversight of the repairs, which meant it missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage. It relied on the resident to chase progress rather than providing clear and proactive updates. The landlord did not offer compensation despite the shortcomings in its complaint handling. The landlord showed no evidence of learning from mistakes during the complaint handling process. These failings delayed resolution and caused the resident avoidable time and trouble.

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.

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate and why

7. The resident reported a roof leak on 16 August 2021 and said the issue had happened before. The landlord recorded the repair as completed on 24 September 2021. It raised further roof‑leak repair orders in November 2022 and March 2023. In the interests of fairness, and given the passage of time, this investigation focuses on events from 10 November 2023, when a leak was reported by the resident, up to 15 March 2024. Any references to events outside this timeframe are included for context only.
8. The resident reported another leak in August 2025, more than a year after the landlord completed repairs on 2 July 2024. As this has not been through the landlord’s complaint process this investigation will not consider this. The resident may seek to raise a further complaint in respect of this if they so wish.

What we found

9. The lease says the leaseholder is responsible for keeping the property in good repair, including decorative repairs. It confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the building. It is not disputed that this includes responsibility for repairing leaks to the roof.
10. The landlord’s repair policy says that routine repairs should be completed within 28 working days.
11. The resident reported a roof leak on 10 November 2023. The landlord’s repair records describe the repair works seen as routine. She contacted the landlord again on 27 November 2023 to make a formal complaint that the roof had not been repaired. She called it on 4 January 2024 for an update, and on 12 January 2024 the landlord emailed its contractor to follow this up.
12. In its stage 1 complaint response on 16 January 2024, the landlord said it would arrange for scaffolding to be erected by 2 February 2024 and expected the repair work to start during the week beginning 5 February 2024. The evidence shows these commitments were not met, reportedly due to poor weather conditions, but the resident was not informed despite the landlord’s commitment to do so in its stage 1 response. She chased the landlord 3 times in February and March 2024 and said she felt she was “going round in circles.” The landlord did not use these repeated contacts as a trigger to review progress and ensure the repairs were completed.
13. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said the rescheduled works would take place on 15 March 2024. This again did not happen, leaving the resident uncertain about when it would carry out the repairs. Scaffolding was not erected until 28 May 2024. The roof repair was completed on 2 July 2024. The contractor recorded that splits had been identified in the roof valley and that liquid waterproofing had been applied to address them. This was more than 7 months after the resident first reported the leak.
14. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord signposted the resident to her insurer so she could make a claim for any internal damage, including damp or mould. This was appropriate because liability for any resultant damp inside the property was uncertain and required a determination. Any assessment of cause and responsibility for damage would need to be made through an insurance process. The resident may make a claim through her own insurer and who in turn may also contact the landlord’s insurer. It is of note though that the landlord should have provided its own insurance details. It would have been good practice for the landlord to repeat this advice in its stage 2 response and after the repairs were completed. We have seen no evidence that it did so.
15. In summary, there was a significant and avoidable delay in repairing the source of the leak. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident during this period, and the information it provided was not timely or consistently accurate. There were repeated delays, periods with no meaningful updates, and no evidence of sustained progress. The records also show shortcomings in planning and coordination with contractors, which contributed to further delay.
16. Taken together, these shortcomings show that the landlord did not act in line with its obligations and did not demonstrate a reasonable standard of service in its oversight of the repairs. They indicate weak project management and a failure to progress the repair within a reasonable timeframe. The resident also spent considerable time and effort pursuing updates over a prolonged period.
17. In its final complaint response, the landlord did not offer compensation for the inconvenience, and time and trouble caused.
18. The Ombudsman finds maladministration because the landlord failed to deliver on its commitments, did not act in accordance with its own policies, and showed no evidence of specific learning to prevent similar failings. Under the Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance, reasonable redress cannot be achieved in such circumstances.
19. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £200 in compensation and ensure the resident is aware of how to make a claim to its insurance company for any damage caused to her property.

20. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it operates a 2-stage complaint process, which is in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.
21. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint at either stage. It took 33 working days to respond at stage 1, which exceeded the timescales set out in its policy and in the Code. The landlord also did not provide any explanation to the resident for this delay or agree revised timescales.
22. In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord committed to completing the roof repair works. However, it did not follow through on these commitments within the timeframe it had given, which meant it missed an opportunity to address the resident’s concerns sooner. This demonstrated poor oversight of its commitment to provide a remedy within its complaint management process. As a result, the resident waited longer for a resolution and had to invest additional time and effort chasing the landlord for updates.
23. The landlord’s compensation policy includes provision for awarding financial redress where a service failure has had an adverse impact on a resident. In this case, the landlord did not make a payment despite the shortcomings in its complaint handling.
24. There was also no demonstrable commitment to learning from these issues in its responses. Reasonable redress cannot be determined in such circumstances. Consequently, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. To reflect this failure, the landlord is ordered to pay £100 to the resident, in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. In this case, the landlord did not maintain effective oversight of known repair needs.
26. In this case the landlord failed to follow through on the promises made in both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. The landlord should ensure that commitments made in complaint responses at all stages are tracked, actioned, evidenced and relevant organisational learning is captured.

Communication

27. The evidence shows that communication between the landlord, its contractor, and the resident was inconsistent. These communication failures contributed significantly to the prolonged delays and the resident’s understandable loss of confidence. An effective communication approach would have ensured regular updates, clear ownership of actions, and timely follow‑up to support repair progression and maintain resident confidence.